03/11/2010 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB318 | |
| HB202 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 11, 2010
8:33 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Herron, Co-Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Co-Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 318
"An Act relating to public use of unregulated water systems."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 202
"An Act relating to state and municipal building code
requirements for fire sprinkler systems in certain residential
buildings."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 318
SHORT TITLE: UNREGULATED POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HARRIS
01/29/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/29/10 (H) CRA, RES
02/25/10 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/25/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/25/10 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/11/10 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 202
SHORT TITLE: RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HERRON
03/23/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/23/09 (H) CRA, L&C
03/11/10 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
PETE FELLMAN, Staff
Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 318 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Harris.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that passage of HB 318 would
result in the state losing its primacy over drinking water.
WARD HURLBURT, M.D., Chief Medical Officer/Director
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: His testimony was read by Jill Lewis,
Deputy Director, Division of Public Health, DHSS.
ROB EARL, Staff
Representative Bob Herron
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 202 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Herron.
DAVID SQUIRES, Fire Marshall
City of Seward
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 202.
PAUL MICHELSOHN, Homebuilder
Anchorage Homebuilders Association
Alaska State Homebuilders Association
National Association of Homebuilders
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 202.
JEFF TUCKER, President
Alaska Fire Chiefs Association
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CSHB 202,
Version R.
DAVID OWENS, Inspector
Owens Inspection
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 202.
ERIC MOHRMANN, Fire Chief
Capital City Fire & Rescue
City & Borough of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 202, Version R.
JESS HALL, Homebuilder
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opined that HB 202 makes sense.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:33:52 AM
CO-CHAIR BOB HERRON called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:33 a.m.
Representatives Munoz, Herron, Keller, and Cissna were present
at the call to order. Representatives Harris, Millett, and
Gardner arrived as the meeting was in progress.
8:34:08 AM
HB 318-UNREGULATED POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS
8:34:38 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 318, "An Act relating to public use of
unregulated water systems."
[Before the committee is CSHB 318, Version 26-LS1357\R, Bullard,
1/29/10, adopted at the February 25, 2010 meeting.]
8:34:43 AM
PETE FELLMAN, Staff, Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, said that it's clear that water is the most basic
human need. He opined that with proper disclosure people should
have the right to choose. He further opined that if the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) had followed its
own regulations, this legislation wouldn't be before the
committee today and people wouldn't have been forced to drive 45
miles to haul water. He pointed out that the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 40 §141.2 provides for variances for up to
five years while DEC helps people upgrade their water systems
via time and funds. He stressed that the well in Salcha has
never tested positive for any contaminants.
8:36:29 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ recalled that once there are 25 or more people
using a well, a more restrictive standard is put in place. She
inquired as to how many people are using the well in Salcha.
MR. FELLMAN answered that up to 40 families use the well in
Salcha. However, DEC regulations require that each individual
be counted. He noted that the committee packet should include a
list of the individuals using the Salcha well.
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ related her understanding that many of the
individuals used the Salcha well seasonally.
MR. FELLMAN confirmed that to be the case, and added that the
list he provided to the committee covered a fairly broad
spectrum of time. He recalled that when the lock was put on the
well there were about 32 individuals using it, and thus from
that time forward only 24 individuals were allowed to use the
well.
8:37:57 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON requested that Mr. Fellman describe Salcha.
MR. FELLMAN related that Salcha, which is part of the Fairbanks
North Star Borough, doesn't have a government. Salcha is one of
the longest communities in Alaska as it covers about 40 miles
along the Richardson Highway south of Fairbanks. The geography
is such that most people can't drill wells for water unless they
live down by the river.
8:38:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to the number of children in
the Salcha area.
MR. FELLMAN estimated that perhaps 100 children live in the
area.
8:39:47 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if DEC currently has a standard in statute
for unregulated water.
MR. FELLMAN specified that the department can provide variances.
For instance, for some wells DEC provides variances such that
there is unregulated water when [the well] is used less than 60
days. Therefore, in the case of Salcha the sponsor is concerned
that DEC didn't provide the opportunity to use a variance to
allow for the Salcha well to be upgraded. In further response
to Co-Chair Munoz, Mr. Fellman explained that DEC is the
regulating authority and CFR 40 has been adopted in the state's
regulations. He expressed concern that DEC didn't come to
Salcha and offer the opportunity to help and provide time to
address any problems.
8:42:43 AM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, explained that HB 318
technically prohibits DNR from stopping the consumption of water
from a public water system that's posted a warning. However,
DEC assumes the intent is to modify DEC's authority since it's
the department that regulates public water systems. The
authority of DNR is restricted to ensuring people have access to
water, while DEC has the authority to regulate consumption from
a public water system. She opined that modifying DNR's
authority rather than DEC's authority was a drafting error. Ms.
Ryan then emphasized that the state has primacy over drinking
water from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
means the state has primary enforcement authority for the U.S.
Safe Drinking Water Act. Therefore, the state via DEC
implements the federal laws in Alaska as long as an adequate job
is done and the state's rules are equal to the EPA guidelines
for the Safe Drinking Water Act. Unfortunately, HB 318 wouldn't
meet that standard as it changes the definition of a public
water system and allows a public water system to opt out of
being a water system so long as a warning is posted. The
federal definition, she explained, defines a public water system
and if that definition is met, then a public water system exists
and there is no opt-out provision. Therefore, if HB 318 passes,
the EPA would revoke DEC's enforcement authority and EPA would
enforce the [federal] rule that already exists. Ms. Ryan opined
that the legislation doesn't accomplish the desired effect of
eliminating any burden on the water system, rather it increases
the burden because the EPA would take over enforcement rather
than the state. She noted that of the many benefits of primacy,
significant funding is the top benefit. Currently, the federal
government gives the state $4.2 million to implement its rules,
while the state match is $1.6 million. In addition the state
receives funding that's loaned or granted to communities to
construct or repair existing water systems. The state's
capitalization grant this year is $13 million, which can be
utilized by small public water systems to comply with the
standard. This year's state capitalization grant is higher than
the average $8 million because of the stimulus recovery effort.
She then pointed out that there is a cadre of tools the state is
able to utilize that EPA wouldn't be able to if the EPA had
primacy. For instance, DEC can hire third party inspectors.
She related her understanding that Alaska is the only state she
knows about that pays private engineers to inspect and provide
technical assistance to water systems. In fact, about 75
percent of the sanitary surveys are performed by third party
inspectors. An additional benefit to the state having primacy
is the state's ability to grant variances or exemptions. The
EPA has drafted 23 rules with which public water systems have to
comply. The state doesn't have primacy for all of those rules
and is working on obtaining primacy for rules 17-19. She
explained that variances or exemptions have specific limitations
such that they can't be granted for a rule that could have an
immediate impact on human health. Variances and exemptions are
allowed for chronic contaminants. For example, DEC has granted
many variances and exemptions on the Kenai Peninsula for
arsenic. Variances and exemptions, she further explained, can't
be granted for water systems to never apply, but rather are
tools that allow time to find a better source of water, collect
necessary resources. Although variances and exemptions have
limitations, they're incredibly useful and allow many systems to
remain in compliance that wouldn't otherwise.
MS. RYAN informed the committee that in the case of the Salcha
water system, the [owners of the Salcha water system] don't want
to test at all. However, a variance or exemption to not test or
not be a water system can't be granted. She reiterated that
variances and exemptions can only be granted to provide time to
comply with specific rules. With regard to an earlier question
regarding standards, the state also regulates water systems that
fall below the federal definition, but doesn't regulate private
wells. For example, the state regulates, albeit to a much lower
standard, those water systems that serve less than 25
individuals per day and don't serve a duplex, which is the
position in which Salcha is. Therefore, systems such as Salcha
are required to do monitoring, although to a lesser scale than
federally regulated water systems.
8:52:08 AM
MS. RYAN, in response to Representative Keller, confirmed that
there is a definition of a "public water system" in the federal
regulations, which were implemented because of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. However, the State of Alaska also has a definition
of a "public water system" in its regulations that goes further
because it covers the smaller water systems that the federal
government doesn't regulate. Because Alaska's definition is
more stringent than the federal definitions, Alaska's program is
acceptable and has been approved by the EPA. If HB 318 were to
pass, then the state's definition of a "public water system"
would be less stringent than that of the EPA, and thus the
state's program wouldn't be approvable.
8:53:32 AM
MS. RYAN, in further response to Representative Keller, said
that water systems shift [in and out of being a public water
system and not being a public water system]. Furthermore, the
federal government is mostly concerned about water systems that
serve a non transient community, people who are drinking the
water all the time. She pointed out that there are many
federally regulated public water systems in Alaska that are only
considered a public water system during the summer. Ms. Ryan
clarified that a public water system is only considered as such
when it's a watering point with a well or a piped system that
feeds the water at the end of the pipe. However, 25 people
drinking water from a river without utilizing a piped system
wouldn't be considered a federally regulated water system.
8:55:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if it's certain that passage of HB
318 would revoke state primacy on drinking water. If so, she
inquired as to how long the process would take.
MS. RYAN answered that although DEC is waiting on the official
EPA document that would specify the aforementioned, DEC has been
informed that passage of HB 318 would result in the revocation
of the state's primacy. The department has also been informed
that the revocation of the state's primacy would occur rather
swiftly and that funding from this fiscal year would be
withdrawn, and thus may need to be repaid. Furthermore, the EPA
has warned DEC that the situation is being watched closely.
8:56:33 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON emphasized that just because the legislature is
discussing something, doesn't mean that it will happen. He
asked if DEC has shared the aforementioned with the EPA.
MS. RYAN explained that the EPA is aware of HB 318 and DEC has
related to the EPA the steps it will take to inform the
legislature of the impacts of HB 318. The EPA has warned DEC
that passage of HB 318 would result in the EPA not certifying
the state's program. Although she said that she didn't know how
quickly it would occur, the EPA seemed fairly serious, she
related.
CO-CHAIR HERRON expressed concern regarding this threat from the
federal government that it will pull current year funding just
because the legislature is discussing a local issue. He
suggested that Ms. Ryan relate to the federal government that
the legislation has a long way to go before it could become law.
MS. RYAN related that she has told the EPA the aforementioned.
She clarified that the EPA would only revoke funding if the
legislation passes and becomes law.
8:58:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to how much it would cost the
state to help Salcha achieve a better water system and
standards.
MS. RYAN answered that it wouldn't take much at all. The Salcha
water system is a ground water system that seems to be clean
from the limited testing the department has seen. For such a
water system, Ms. Ryan estimated that it would cost
approximately $15,000 for the initial engineer review and
checking to ensure the well is cased correctly. Also the
average testing costs for an average ground water system that
doesn't have any treatments is about $500 per year.
9:00:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related that she attended the National
Public Health Conference during which there was a presentation
on safe water, which focused mainly on Alaska. During the
presentation it was said that nationally about 99 percent of
water is clean, whereas only about 70 percent or so of Alaska's
water is considered clean. The presentation provided much
information regarding the impacts of unclean water on Alaskan
infants. She opined that physical and emotional damage occurs
when one in three children in communities with unsafe water are
sent to hospitals [outside the community in which the child
lives] and away from the parents. Therefore, she understood the
concern for the safety of humans, especially children. She
asked if DEC contemplates the aforementioned.
MS. RYAN said she isn't familiar with those statistics.
However, she related her understanding that Dr. Hurlburt,
Director, Division of Public Health, has related his personal
experiences when villages didn't have safe drinking water
sources and the high rates of disease and sickness in infants in
particular. Ms. Ryan emphasized that there is a marked change
in the health of communities when they have a safe drinking
water source. Since most of Alaska's communities have had safe
drinking water since the 1970s, she said that nothing has
dramatically changed since then.
9:03:08 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to why the Fairbanks North Star
Borough isn't involved since Salcha is in the borough.
MS. RYAN said that while a public water system is often run by a
government organization, they aren't necessarily run by the city
and borough government. The DEC isn't concerned with who runs
the water system; the concern is that it's run safely.
9:04:28 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced the intent of the co-chairs to bring
HB 318 before the committee again next week.
9:05:18 AM
WARD HURLBURT, M.D., Chief Medical Officer/Director, Division of
Public Health JILL LEWIS, Deputy Director, Division of Public
Health, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), had his
testimony read by Jill Lewis, Deputy Director, Division of
Public Health, DHSS, as follows:
As I read the background about this bill, I certainly
sympathize with the residents of Salcha who clearly
felt that they were doing a good thing for their
neighbors, to provide a well for them in a community
location. I also understand the intent to try to
shield the residents of Salcha and other Alaska
communities from unnecessary and burdensome state
regulation. I first worked in Alaska as a physician
in 1961 when I lived in Dillingham, in the days before
the state and federal government began to collaborate
on projects to bring safe water and sanitation to
remote and rural communities across Alaska; a process
that is ongoing and certainly not yet complete. As a
young physician, I was impressed with a large number
of very sick toddlers and infants who needed to be
hospitalized and placed on intravenous fluids due to
severe gastroenteritis and diarrhea. In 1962 I
presented a scientific paper at the National Institute
of Health contrasting the incidents of this serious
and sometimes fatal health problem between breast fed
and bottle fed infants. The breast fed infants seldom
contracted this condition and it was all too common in
bottle fed infants and toddlers. Over the years, as
safe water and sanitation systems were installed
across Alaska the number of sick young children and
infants with gastroenteritis dramatically declined.
Today there are fewer in patients in each of the
tribal health system field hospitals than there were
in the 1960s. The major reason for this dramatic
change has been the reduced number of sick infants and
young children with gastroenteritis and those of
similar age who were ill with complications of now
vaccine preventable communicable diseases. The
regulations that were put in place to protect the
public from unsafe water were a response to the
serious morbidity and mortality occasioned by the use
of unsafe water by Alaskans. The regulations are not
onerous, but are common sense and responsible. You
have heard from DEC that they tried to administer this
regulation in a supportive, helping manner. You've
also heard that in the absence of an Alaska
regulation, the federal Environmental Protection
Agency will administer the federal requirements and
take away the $7.5 million federal grant used to
administer this public service regulation. While I
sympathize with the good intentions behind this bill
and the frustration on the part of the Salcha
residents who felt they were doing a good thing, I
must express concerns with this bill. The assurance
of safe water supplies is a core responsibility of
good government.
9:08:40 AM
MR. FELLMAN, in response to Co-Chair Herron, specified that the
well is maintained by the Salcha Fair Association as it's
located on the fairgrounds' property. One individual has
control of the keys to the well.
CO-CHAIR HERRON then inquired as to why the Salcha Fair
Association isn't interested in having a water system.
MR. FELLMAN related that the Salcha Fair Association and the
residents in the area are interested in having a water system
and the well has been tested twice yearly and been clean. The
issue is the cost of the engineering to upgrade the well. Mr.
Fellman opined that because of CFR 40, DEC has regulations in
place that provide, in certain economic situations, federal
funds to the state to upgrade, educate, and help [construct]
safe water systems. He explained that three years can be
provided to upgrade a well and then a five-year extension.
However, a certain standard must be met. Mr. Fellman opined
that Salcha merely needs a variance to meet a standard within a
reasonable timeframe. Such a variance could allow Salcha time
to obtain the funding for the engineering and upgrades.
However, DEC chose to cut off people from the Salcha water
system.
9:11:12 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if Salcha residents pay taxes to the
borough.
MR. FELLMAN replied yes. In further response to Co-Chair Munoz,
Mr. Fellman said that he didn't know whether the Salcha
residents have petitioned the borough government for assistance.
9:11:36 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if DEC has worked with the borough
government since there is no tribal or city government related
to this well.
MS. RYAN replied no. She informed the committee that the
Fairbanks North Star Borough doesn't even run the public water
system in Fairbanks. The public waters systems in the Fairbanks
North Star Borough tend to be privately held.
CO-CHAIR HERRON suggested that [HB 318] provides an opportunity
to create a new way to provide safe water.
MS. RYAN reiterated that many privately held entities have
chosen to run their water system to ensure safe drinking water.
She explained that water system members can approach the
department or other funding sources to obtain resources to get
their system into compliance. The program provides millions of
dollars in loans and grants are available to communities to
perform upgrades. The department works with interested
entities, but the department can't make entities seek these
opportunities.
9:14:20 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced the intent of the sponsor and the co-
chairs to work on this legislation. He further announced that
the fiscal note will change to a net zero as he doesn't
appreciate the threat [from the federal government]. He
reiterated that HB 318 would be held over.
9:14:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if it's possible for DEC to give
loans to communities, which the communities could repay.
MR. FELLMAN acknowledged that there is federal money available.
He emphasized that the community just needed time and technical
assistance to upgrade the well. He opined that the community of
Salcha isn't opposed to gathering the $15,000 to upgrade the
well, the community just needed a variance in order to have the
time to work with DEC to craft a plan to upgrade the well. With
regard to health concerns, Mr. Fellman expressed concern with
the regulation that essentially isn't concerned [with the
health] of those using a water system when there are less than
25 people who use it.
[HB 318 was held over.]
HB 202-RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
9:16:40 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 202, "An Act relating to state and municipal
building code requirements for fire sprinkler systems in certain
residential buildings."
9:16:52 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved to adopt CSHB 202, Version 26-LS0776/R,
Cook, 3/9/10, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version R was before the committee.
9:17:39 AM
ROB EARL, Staff, Representative Bob Herron, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Herron, informed the committee that proposed Version R is the
same version as the companion legislation in the Senate Labor
and Commerce Standing Committee. Mr. Earl explained that the
original legislation specified that municipalities couldn't, for
any reason, mandate sprinklers in any single- or double-family
residences. Version R, however, requires municipalities go
through a public process prior to mandating sprinklers in
single- and double-family residences. Also, Version R allows
the mandate to specify such a requirement in a certain type of
neighborhood or construction. He further explained that Version
R requires that prior to a municipality mandating sprinkler
systems in new construction of residential buildings with one-
or two-family dwellings, the municipality must: perform a cost-
benefit analysis; publish a summary of the ordinance and the
cost-benefit analysis and notice the time and place of each
scheduled public hearing at least 30 days prior to the first
public hearing; and hold three public hearings within a 60-day
period.
9:19:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to how the requirements of HB
202 compare to existing processes. She inquired as to why only
fire sprinkler systems are being targeted.
CO-CHAIR HERRON explained that Version R merely extends the
discussion that will happen in the community, and some would say
it's a more transparent process.
MR. EARL added that there is a lengthy building code adoption
process. With regard to why have a mandate just for fire
sprinklers, Mr. Earl pointed out that it could be an expensive
process that would add to the price of homes. Therefore, the
sponsor feels it's important to spotlight the code regarding
sprinklers and provide more public review. Although the code
adoption process does go through an extensive public review, the
sprinkler mandate would be included with all the other codes and
thus this legislation would make it more transparent.
9:23:09 AM
DAVID SQUIRES, Fire Marshall, City of Seward, began by
specifying that his concerns are related to the language on page
1, lines 7-14 and page 2, lines 1-5. He highlighted that the
state already has a process for adopting building, fire, and
residential codes. He then reminded the committee that these
codes are at the municipal level and the state doesn't enforce
or enact these codes. This legislation proposes to require the
municipality to enact an ordinance if they want to have
sprinklers in their area. He directed attention to the language
on page 1, line 8, and pointed out that sprinkler systems have
been utilized in lieu of other requirements, such as water
systems. He then informed the committee that DEC doesn't allow
private wells within 1,000 feet of a municipal well. If the
municipality doesn't extend that water system, the residential
homeowner has to do so. The aforementioned is a higher expense
than a sprinkler system would be.
MR. SQUIRES related that the sprinkler system requirement has
been used to reduce construction costs in the City of Seward,
where municipal water systems aren't available. The
aforementioned hasn't impacted the rest of the community, he
said. He explained that without the ordinance, the tax base of
the rest of the community will be impacted because of the need
to purchase additional tankers to haul water to residences.
Furthermore, another building will have to be
constructed/acquired in order to house the additional equipment.
Thereby, HB 202 would increase the cost of residential
construction in the City of Seward and would increase the tax
rate to everyone living in the area. He noted that the
committee packet should include a letter from the manager and
mayor of the City of Seward, both of whom also oppose HB 202.
He highlighted that the letter relates the view that HB 202 is
an infraction on the City of Seward's rights as a home rule city
and doesn't listen to the residents of Seward.
9:27:23 AM
PAUL MICHELSOHN, Homebuilder, Anchorage Homebuilders
Association, Alaska State Homebuilders Association, National
Association of Homebuilders, informed the committee that he has
served on the following code related organizations: the
International Code Council (ICC), the Fire and Life Safety
Committee, and the International Residential Code (IRC) Building
and Energy Committee. He related that he currently sits and has
sat on the Building Board for the Municipality of Anchorage,
which deciphers and approves codes in the Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA), for 17 years and has been chairman three times.
He further related that he sits on the NHBCCS Committee, which
is an oversight and review committee that watches how codes are
introduced and challenges codes at the ICC level. He noted that
he has sat on the aforementioned committee for about 14 years.
Mr. Michelsohn pointed out that in the MOA there is a process,
albeit a flawed process or one that's not exercised. In
Anchorage, the 2009 edition of the IRC is being worked on. The
aforementioned addition is the code that included the fire
sprinkler requirement in the body of the code rather than the
appendix of the code. The process in Anchorage is one in which
the building official, an appointed official, elects a committee
to review the codes and makes suggestions regarding amendments,
deletions, and additions to the building official. The building
official, referred to as an authority of jurisdiction (AOJ), has
the final say. Mr. Michelsohn noted that the AOJ doesn't
necessarily have to be a building official. From the AOJ, the
[code] goes to the building board in Anchorage for review. He
noted that in the many years he has served, he didn't recall the
code ever failing at that level. The code is then forwarded to
the city attorney at which point the code is publicized once for
a meeting of the assembly. At the six MOA Assembly meetings on
the code, he related that he has never seen a public individual
testify. The system doesn't have the public input necessary for
this [proposed fire sprinkler] code. Therefore, this
legislation has been introduced, he opined, because the
[proposed fire sprinkler] code is the single most [significant]
code change ever introduced that will have a monetary impact on
the consumer. Mr. Michelsohn highlighted that the legislation
says that "this requirement is only necessary if a jurisdiction
mandates all new construction". If a jurisdiction believes it's
necessary to protect a historic building or region, the
jurisdiction can negotiate with the builder regarding the
possibility of utilizing a sprinkler system. He opined that
this battle has been going on for many years. The builders of
the state want to be more proactive and thus are requesting the
legislature's support for HB 202.
9:32:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if some jurisdictions have already
passed codes requiring all new buildings have sprinkler systems,
or is the desire to preemptively address jurisdictions of the
possibility that jurisdictions might pass such codes.
MR. MICHELSOHN answered that no Alaska jurisdictions have
adopted the code [requiring all new buildings have sprinkler
systems], although Anchorage is reviewing the 2009 code that
includes the fire sprinkler requirement. He related that the
building official and fire marshall of Ketchikan tried to slip
in this mandatory fire sprinkler requirement for all buildings,
and it remains up for question whether they will try to
introduce the aforementioned requirement. In further response
to Representative Gardner, Mr. Michelsohn explained that the IRC
code book addresses one- and two-family dwellings while
triplexes and above are addressed by the International Building
Code. He further explained that all jurisdictions that adopt
the ICC edition of the IRC are faced with amending or adopting
the code in its entirety. He related that several jurisdictions
and states have banned [the proposed mandatory fire sprinkler
system requirement].
9:36:41 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced his intent to move HB 202 from
committee next week.
9:36:53 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ, drawing from her experience on the Juneau
Assembly, related her understanding that IBC changes come up
regularly and are reviewed by local individuals every three
years. The changes, she related, are complex and in many cases
have substantial financial impacts.
9:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if Mr. Michelsohn is familiar with
studies that show the effectiveness of sprinkler systems and the
level of benefit they provide.
MR. MICHELSOHN informed the committee that the National
Association of Homebuilders disagrees with the statistics that
have been presented [regarding the effectiveness of sprinkler
systems] as they don't believe they're as accurate as they've
been portrayed. In response to Representative Keller, Mr.
Michelsohn said that he would make himself available at the next
hearing on HB 202. He noted that he isn't paid to testify.
9:39:53 AM
JEFF TUCKER, President, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association, related
the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association's opposition to CSHB 202,
Version R. He told the committee that there has already been
testimony in opposition on the companion legislation, CSSB 129,
from the cities of Kenai, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Seward,
Sitka and the Fairbanks North Star and Mat-Su Boroughs as well
as resolutions from the Alaska Municipal League and the Kodiak
Island Borough supporting the ability of Alaska communities to
adopt code and ordinances at a local level. Mr. Tucker
emphasized that the state doesn't place these extraordinary
burdens required by Version R on communities for any other
ordinance adoption process. Therefore, he questioned why the
state feels such is necessary when a community is trying to
determine how best to provide life safety services to its
residents. He opined that there are already robust procedures
in place when municipalities adopt building codes. These
procedures involve community members, building officials,
contractors, fire officials, homeowners, architects, engineers,
and others who can best determine the needs of the local
community. He referred to a document entitled "Municipal Code
Adoption Processes", which took the comparison between CSSB 129,
proposed in the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee,
and added the minimum ordinance adoption requirements per AS
29.25.020. The comparison illustrates the importance local
communities place on the code adoption process and the extra
steps that are already in place for the appointment of standing
committees, multiple public hearings, and a review process that
may last from several months to over two years prior to code
adoption. Mr. Tucker opined that the aforementioned process
already provides a transparent process that allows involvement
from members of the community. Additionally, he opined that
there is no state need met by requiring local communities to add
requirements and expense to their existing process. "No other
ordinance adoption process has a requirement mandated by the
state to do a cost benefit analysis," he highlighted. Although
the cost of a residential sprinkler system, which has been
estimated to be $3,000, has been cited as the reason HB 202 is
necessary, he pointed out that in Alaska there are already many
tax credits and other incentives to help offset the costs for
the installation of residential sprinklers. In fact, under AS
29.45.030 2 percent of the assessed value of the structure is
exempt from taxation if the structure contains a fire protection
system. Therefore, for a $250,000 home, $5,000 of the value of
the home is exempt from taxation for as long as the property
owners own the home. He then informed the committee that on
January 27, 2010, Kevin Temple, owner of Interior Appraisals,
gave a presentation to the Interior Alaska Homebuilders
Association regarding appraisers. The presentation spoke about
the credit appraisers were giving to residential sprinkler
systems in Alaska. In fact, he related that he recently
performed an appraisal of an approximately 1,400 square foot
home with a residential fire sprinkler system for which he gave
a $3,000 credit. Mr. Tucker then related the following from the
Alaska Division of Insurance: "The three largest insurers in
the State of Alaska: State Farm, AllState, and USAA, all gave
credit for residential sprinklers ranging from 8 to 10 percent
for full coverage systems and State Farm and USAA gave from 5 to
8 percent for a partial system." In conclusion, Mr. Tucker
opined:
If the sponsors of this legislation are truly
interested in achieving their stated goal of
protecting the homeowners from the cost of
installation of residential fire sprinklers, we should
be here discussing legislation on how we could do more
to place incentives in place and offset even further
the cost involved in the installation of residential
sprinklers. The proponents of this legislation stated
it is needed to protect the interest of homeowners; we
feel it is the local communities who are best able to
determine the needs of residents not the state. Local
communities have working code adoption processes that
have served them and their residents well for many,
many years. CSHB 202 does not improve the local code
adoption process, it only places unfunded and
unnecessary requirements on local communities. Again,
the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association stands opposed to
the adoption of CSHB 202.
9:45:56 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to why Anchorage isn't one of the
communities in opposition to this legislation.
MR. TUCKER clarified that when fire chiefs from the various
communities speak they are speaking on behalf of the community
in which they serve. The City of Anchorage has decided that
there is no opposition to this legislation, which is a decision
the local community can make. The aforementioned makes the
already stated point that a local community can best determine
its needs, particularly in terms of the IRC. He reiterated that
the state shouldn't mandate [fire sprinkler systems].
9:47:34 AM
DAVID OWENS, Inspector, Owens Inspection, informed the committee
that he has been a building inspector for 27 years. He then
stated his support for HB 202 as he doesn't believe it's
unreasonable to allow the public more input. He related his
understanding that the current state regulation for
municipalities is five-day notice and one hearing, which some
local jurisdictions follow. He then turned to the 2008 version
of the National Electrical Code, which was done over a holiday
period with short public notice and one public hearing. The
aforementioned caused a lot of his clients to call him regarding
their concerns about the process. In conclusion, Mr. Owens
stated his support of allowing public notice and analysis of the
costs of such a significant change [as mandating fire sprinkler
systems in one- and two-family dwellings].
9:49:45 AM
ERIC MOHRMANN, Fire Chief, Capital City Fire & Rescue, City &
Borough of Juneau, began by emphasizing that the City & Borough
of Juneau already has a robust code adoption process. The
committee that is designated to review the codes every three
years is comprised of private individuals: a civil, mechanical,
and electrical engineer, an architect, and a contractor. This
committee meets with the building official and the fire
official. In over two-and-a-half years of publicized public
meetings the code is reviewed line-by-line and recommendations
are developed. The local jurisdictions, which are deferred, are
allowed to modify the code provisions so long as they are at
least as stringent as those adopted by the State Fire Marshall's
Office. The code provisions can exceed the specifications of
the State Fire Marshall, which is why they're deferred. Over
the two-and-a-half year process, public input is taken in each
meeting and the minutes are made public. The compiled
recommendations are taken to the Public Works and Facilities
Committee (PWFC) of the Assembly. The aforementioned committee,
which is comprised of elected assembly members, listens to the
recommendations and discusses them in detail. These meetings,
he noted, are also publicized and open for public testimony and
the minutes are available to the public. After several meetings
with the PWFC, their work goes to the assembly for a minimum of
two readings. The first meeting is an introductory meeting
during which all the information is made available to the
public. The second meeting that occurs 30 days later is a
meeting that allows public testimony on the information or
discussion on particular matters. At this point, the assembly
can vote on the matter or send it back to the committee. The
aforementioned process is followed by the City & Borough of
Juneau as well as other similar jurisdictions. Therefore, he
said he was surprised to hear the earlier testimony
characterizing the Anchorage process as flawed. If that's the
case, Anchorage should fix it, he opined. Juneau's process, he
opined, works very well. Mr. Mohrmann related that Juneau
considers code provisions, fire and building code provisions,
which far exceed the cost of installation of residential
sprinkler systems. However, none of those code provisions are
scrutinized or made to stand up to a cost benefit analysis or
the three public meetings. He noted that Juneau already exceeds
the three public meetings, which is also the case with most
jurisdictions. Mr. Mohrmann said that he's not sure what a cost
benefit analysis is as it isn't specified in the legislation.
He then turned to the issue regarding whether this [proposed
code] would apply to all residents or to selected residents. He
questioned whether selectively applying the code is even legal.
In conclusion, Mr. Mohrmann related that the City & Borough of
Juneau feels that its existing process is very rigorous and
additional burdens aren't necessary to address this topic.
9:55:03 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the committee will likely address
concerns about the cost benefit analysis next week. Therefore,
he charged Mr. Mohrmann to provide any recommendations he saw
fit. He then inquired as to why Mr. Mohrmann would be opposed
to lengthening the public process if that benefits residents.
MR. MOHRMANN clarified that he isn't opposed to a full and open
public hearing process. He further clarified that the open
public hearings the City & Borough of Juneau holds as a deferred
jurisdiction far exceed what's specified in the legislation.
9:56:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if Mr. Mohrmann could provide the
list of questions he stated in his testimony.
MR. MOHRMANN agreed to do so.
9:57:30 AM
JESS HALL, Homebuilder, told the committee that he has been a
homebuilder for 35 years and has spent much time talking with
customers regarding costs and safety features. He then recalled
building a home for a young couple in the Mat-Su Valley.
Originally, he built the couple a small starter home, but after
having kids he built them a larger home. After discussing with
the couple, of which the husband was a firefighter, what
features they desired in the home, the couple said they wanted
to install a sprinkler system. However, the couple decided not
to install the sprinkler system but rather do other upgrades.
Later the bid for the sprinkler system came in at $6,000-$8,000.
Mr. Hall said due to all other code requirements he would tend
to agree with this firefighter who didn't feel the need to
install sprinklers in his home. However, he pointed out that
outside of Palmer, there is no building code and thus residents
can build whatever and not meet the safety codes. He reviewed a
recent change for safety that didn't add that much cost to the
homeowner and contrasted that to the costly mandate of fire
sprinklers that may also require the installation of pressure
tanks because the home uses a well. He opined that the people
who build homes need to decide if they want fire sprinklers.
Furthermore, there are other systems, such as misters, that are
lower cost than fire sprinkler systems. In conclusion, Mr. Hall
opined that HB 202 makes sense.
10:02:40 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that Representative Keller is
considering an amendment to the cost benefit analysis provision
of HB 202. He reiterated his intent to move HB 202 from
committee next week.
10:03:14 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 10:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS HB 202 version R (same as CSSB 129 M).PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 SB 129 |
| CS SB129 - AFCA Letter.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 SB 129 |
| HB 202 LTRS of Support I.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Plumbers Union LTR against.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - AFCA Comments on Side by Side Comparison.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - Municipal Code Adoption Processes.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - Summary of Adoption Process.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Letters Against.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| CS HB 202 (version R) Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB202-DPS-FLS-03-08-10.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - ISO RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER FACT SHEET B.doc |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |