02/08/2011 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: City of Unalaska Epa Npdes Permit/adec | |
| HB130 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 2011
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Bob Herron
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: CITY OF UNALASKA EPA NPDES PERMIT/ADEC
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 130
"An Act relating to municipal building code requirements for
fire sprinkler systems in certain residential buildings; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 130 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 130
SHORT TITLE: RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
01/28/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/11 (H) CRA, L&C
02/08/11 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRIS HLADICK, City Manager
City of Unalaska
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the City of
Unalaska's EPA NPDES permit situation.
DAN EASTON, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided further background regarding the
City of Unalaska's EPA NPDES permit situation.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During City of Unalaska overview regarding
the EPA NPDES permit, answered questions.
CAMERON LEONARD, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Fairbanks)
Department of Law
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the City of Unalaska overview
regarding the EPA NPDES permit, answered questions.
MARK LYNCH, City Manager
City of Cordova
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the City of Unalaska overview
regarding the EPA NPDES permit, related Cordova's situation.
ROB EARL, Staff
Representative Bob Herron
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 130 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Herron.
JEFF TUCKER, President
Alaska Fire Chiefs Association
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Alaska Fire Chiefs
Association is not opposed to HB 130, as currently written.
PAUL MICHELSOHN, Co-Chair
Alaska State Homebuilders Association Legislative Committee
Alaska State Homebuilders Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
ERROL CHAMPION
Alaska Board of Realtors
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the adoption of HB 130.
WALLY SMITH, Member
Alaska State Homebuilders Association;
Interior Alaska Building Association
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
DARRELL BOURNE, President
Interior Alaska Builders Association;
Member of the Alaska State Homebuilders Association
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
ALAN WILSON, Co-Chair
Alaska State Homebuilders Association Legislative Committee
Alaska State Homebuilders Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
GLENDA FEEKEN
Alaska Association of Realtors
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:22 AM
CHAIR CATHY ENGSTROM MUNOZ called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:02
a.m. Representatives Foster, Austerman, Gardner, and Munoz were
present at the call to order. Representatives Saddler, Cissna,
and Dick arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^Presentation: City of Unalaska EPA NPDES Permit/ADEC
Presentation: City of Unalaska EPA NPDES Permit/ADEC
8:02:52 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be
a presentation regarding the City of Unalaska's Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES).
8:03:31 AM
CHRIS HLADICK, City Manager, City of Unalaska, began by
informing the committee that he has been the city manager of the
City of Unalaska since 2001. He then provided the following
summary of the situation in the City of Unalaska. In 1999, a
new wastewater treatment plant came on line at a cost of
approximately $3.5 million. In 2004, the city reapplied for a
new permit, which included technical limits that required the
city to go from a primary treatment to advanced primary
treatment. He then turned attention to the other two projects
that are directly involved with what the City of Unalaska needs
to address by 2014. First, the City of Unalaska needs to build
a new cell for its landfill. He explained that the existing
landfill is lined and the leachate goes into the wastewater
collection system. The leachate impacts the ability to treat
wastewater and impacts the efficiency of the plant. After the
wastewater treatment project was constructed, the landfill
leachate was placed in the waste stream.
MR. HLADICK returned to 2004 when the City of Unalaska realized
the new technical limits would require advanced primary
treatment. With the help of the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), the City of Unalaska convinced EPA that a
mistake was made on the permit and EPA drafted an amendment to
the permit that went out to public comment. At that point, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife stated that a section 7 consultation wasn't
performed on the impact of the outfall on the Steller's Eider.
The EPA said it didn't have time for that and turned the matter
over to enforcement. Enforcement then determined that the City
of Unalaska had been in violation since 2004. However, in 2004
there was no timeline to build a new plant. Upon the matter
being turned over to enforcement, the city negotiated with EPA.
The EPA turned the case over to the U.S. Department of Justice,
which has resulted in the city dealing with attorneys and
settlement negotiations regarding the fine and when the plant
will be built.
MR. HLADICK mentioned that in 1979, 76 villages, including
Unalaska, were on a list [exempting them from requesting a
waiver from a secondary treatment requirement under the Clean
Water Act]. The cost for a new plant to perform advanced
primary treatment would be $11 million, whereas secondary
treatment would cost $24 million. The difference in operating
costs will be huge due to the need to deal with sludge. Sludge
will have to return to the landfill, while leachate will return
to the wastewater treatment plant. At this point, Mr. Hladick
explained that the City of Unalaska has to build a new landfill
cell for $9 million as well as an LT2 water plant requirement
that has to be online by 2014 to address cryptosporidium. He
explained that since cryptosporidium was found and EPA hasn't
created a maximum contaminant level, a water plant has to be
constructed. The city also faces a minimum cost of $11.5
million to construct the wastewater treatment plant. On the
sewer side, bills have increased by 83 percent. If the city has
to go to advanced primary treatment, [sewer] will cost $120 a
month and secondary treatment will cost well over $150 a month.
8:09:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled that the ex-mayor of Unalaska
has touted Unalaska as the top seafood port in the nation.
Therefore, he questioned why Unalaska isn't [building a new
treatment plant].
MR. HLADICK stated that the amount of money involved is
tremendous, not to mention the rate shock the consumer will
experience. He clarified that the city is in the planning
phases of all three of the projects. The design for the water
plant is complete and funds have been applied for from DEC.
Furthermore, the city will apply for funds from Washington, D.
C., for the water and the wastewater. Moreover, since there's
no money available for landfills, the city will likely borrow
money for the landfill. In further response to Representative
Austerman, Mr. Hladick informed the committee that he is
applying for $3 million for the water treatment plant [from the
state] and the federal government. The city will request $4
million for the wastewater [treatment plant from the state] as
well as $4 million from the federal government and the remainder
will come from the city. He noted that he didn't know how long
it would take to obtain the financing if the city is required to
go to secondary treatment.
8:10:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if there have been any discussions
with Alaska's federal delegation regarding what it could do.
MR. HLADICK replied yes, adding his hope that there would be
committee hearings on this issue in Washington, D.C., as well.
Furthermore, the City of Unalaska is working with DEC for a
possible legislative fix.
8:11:13 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ inquired as to what creates the need for more
advanced processing than what is presently performed in the
existing 76 communities that are exempted.
MR. HLADICK attributed it to the periodic renewal of the permit,
which he recalled is every 5 years. He opined that he has never
seen a permit have fewer restrictions. With regard to the other
exempt communities, Mr. Hladick said that he didn't know what
would be next for them, particularly since he is unsure why
Unalaska is in the situation it is given the fact that the
federal register included published policy by the EPA that
changed. In further response to Chair Munoz, Mr. Hladick
confirmed that DEC has primacy over these issues.
8:13:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the EPA was generally
cooperative when the state received primacy over the point of
discharge. He inquired as to the EPA's general attitude in
regard to Alaska taking the lead with the NPDES.
MR. HLADICK deferred to Mr. Easton. He related his
understanding that primacy happened during this entire situation
with the City of Unalaska. As far as he knows, the EPA is still
handling Unalaska's case. However, Unalaska would like DEC to
take over enforcement of this case so that the city could deal
with "the folks that we know and that know the community."
8:13:57 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ noted that EPA was invited to participate with the
committee today, but it declined. [Later in the hearing it was
brought out that the EPA sent a letter saying it couldn't speak
because of involvement in confidential negotiations.]
8:14:20 AM
DAN EASTON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation, informed the committee that his involvement with
this situation started in 2004 when he received a call from the
then-city manager of Unalaska. The manager related that the
City of Unalaska had received a new permit the [requirements] of
which he estimated would be difficult to meet. He asked DEC to
review the permit. Upon review of the permit, a mistake was
found. He explained that DEC made a mistake when it made some
calculations when it certified the permit. The department
informed EPA of the mistake and that as a result the city
wouldn't be able to comply with the permit. The EPA agreed to
allow the permit to be fixed and thus a modification correcting
the errors was prepared. However, that modification was never
made. For that reason and others, the City of Unalaska has had
difficulty complying with the permit. As Mr. Hladick related, a
few years ago EPA said that the city had violated its permit and
turned it over to enforcement for action. In fact, the city and
EPA came close to negotiating a settlement, which included a
compliance schedule that would've provided time for the city to
make upgrades to its sewage treatment plant. Unfortunately, at
the last minute that settlement offer was revoked by the EPA and
a few years later the case was turned over to the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ). Although negotiations between the
city and DOJ are confidential, some of the negotiations are less
confidential because it's written correspondence with the city.
Upon reading some of that correspondence, Mr. Easton related
that the U.S. Department of Justice has said that it will reduce
the fine if the city will provide a higher level of secondary
treatment than required under the waiver, which would be
expensive. He explained that every city has to provide
secondary treatment of its sewage unless it has a waiver. The
City of Unalaska has one form of a waiver, with which it can
provide a lesser level of treatment, primary treatment.
Recently, the pace of negotiations between DOJ and the city have
slowed if not stopped. Mr. Easton told the committee that DEC
has offered to intervene on behalf of the city, preferably
having the permit and the enforcement case referred to DEC such
that it can work with the city to develop an agreement to
improve treatment and achieve compliance in a time certain.
However, those offers have been rebuffed by EPA. Mr. Easton
then informed the committee that he has dealt with the City of
Unalaska for many years and has found them very responsive.
Thus, he said he is confident that if DEC were allowed to
intervene, it could work with the city to reach a reasonable
solution.
MR. EASTON then turned to the issue of primacy. He explained
that the 76 communities with waivers, such as the City of
Unalaska, would transfer to DEC and DEC would write the permits
and be responsible for enforcing them. The reason the City of
Unalaska's waiver didn't transfer is because the transfer
agreement includes a provision that specifies that in the event
the EPA has an ongoing enforcement case, the permits in the case
are to stay with the EPA until the case is resolved.
8:21:45 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the other [76] communities [with waivers]
would potentially be subject to the same issues the City of
Unalaska faces.
MR. EASTON said that there are circumstances that make the City
of Unalaska's situation a bit unique. However, he said that
he's not sure that it's a foregone conclusion that because it's
happening in the City of Unalaska that the other 76 communities
would face similar circumstances.
8:22:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON opined that although the state may hold
primacy in the other communities [with waivers], it wouldn't
take much for EPA to intervene because of a mistake. He
informed the committee of the situation in the City of Bethel,
which in 2004 decided not to construct a sludge plant, the cost
of which was $10 million in 2004. He questioned what the City
of Bethel will do when the EPA requires it to construct a sludge
pant. Representative Herron opined that the state will likely
be stuck with a large bill for these 76 communities.
8:24:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if there is any precedent for the
state taking over in a situation in which there's a dispute with
the EPA. She asked if there's any precedent in the nation in
which the local enforcement and environmental conservation
agency has taken over in an ongoing case.
MR. EASTON said that he couldn't answer. However, he offered
that generally in a case of primacy the EPA would defer to the
state while it would retain the right to object or have
oversight technology. The situation with the City of Unalaska
presents a unique set of circumstances.
8:26:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN inquired as to whether Kodiak has a
primary or secondary treatment plant.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation, presumed that the City of Kodiak has
a secondary treatment plant.
MR. EASTON then confirmed that the City of Kodiak provides
secondary treatment.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN informed the committee that secondary
treatment is an expensive, major operation to maintain.
Furthermore, sludge is a constant issue.
8:27:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the error in calculations made
by DEC was substantive or minor.
MR. EASTON answered that it was a very substantive mistake. The
permit should've said that city is required to remove 30 percent
of the biochemical oxygen demand and/or total suspended solids.
However, the permit inverted the numbers, specifying that 70
percent [of the biochemical oxygen demand and/or total suspended
solids] must be removed. He noted that even with a correction
of the aforementioned, the City of Unalaska would've still had
violations with fecal coliform due to the impacts of the
leachate on the treatment process. Still, a correction would've
resulted in much fewer instances of permit violations.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if EPA acknowledged it has some
complicity in not resolving this error that EPA said it would
fix.
MR. EASTON said that EPA acknowledged the error, prepared a
modification to the permit to correct the error. However, for
reasons he didn't understand, the EPA never implemented the
modification.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER remarked that it may be time to talk to
attorneys.
MR. EASTON indicated that the city has an attorney.
8:30:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to the prospects of settling
this issue with EPA in conditions favorable to the city and
state.
8:30:53 AM
CAMERON LEONARD, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Fairbanks), Department of
Law, noted that he has been involved in a number of the
settlement discussions, which have been dragging on for a number
of months. At this point, he said he didn't hold much hope that
the settlement discussions are going to bear fruit. Although
the EPA and DOJ seem quite far from the City of Unalaska in
terms of settlement, discussions are still occurring so there is
still some hope.
8:31:31 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ recalled testimony that indicated that the City of
Unalaska is working with the congressional delegation on a
legislative fix. She asked if Mr. Leonard knew what the fix is.
MR. LEONARD responded that he isn't familiar with what kind of
legislative fix is being discussed, although he could imagine
legislative fixes that would address the problem.
8:32:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the witnesses are present simply
to make the committee aware of the issue or do they desire some
particular action be taken by the legislature.
MR. EASTON said that he was asked to be present today.
MR. HLADICK clarified that he is here to let everyone know
what's going on and seeking funding for it. Furthermore, he
said he's present to notify other communities and alert them to
the possible ramifications. He reminded the committee that it's
already very expensive to live in the City of Unalaska and now
the sewer bill is going to increase from $50 per month to over
$125 per month. Moreover, the residents of the City of Unalaska
will face an increase in their water bill because of the
required construction of a $9.5 million plant, although it has
some of the cleanest water in the state. The residents will
also face an increase in their landfill bills. Mr. Hladick
pointed out that the funds that should be used to build the
infrastructure of the fishing industry are being diverted to
meet EPA regulations.
8:34:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON informed the committee that primary
treatment essentially means an open lagoon that is aerated
without mechanical devices and the water is discharged into the
environment. Any treatment beyond primary requires the use of
mechanical systems, which is costly. Representative Herron
opined that the EPA is involved because U.S. Fish & Wildlife
wouldn't let the EPA approve the modification due to the impact
on the Steller's Eiders. He related his fear that the EPA, for
other communities such as Bethel, may not allow discharge into
the Kuskokwim River until a sludge plant is installed. He
questioned what would happen during the time in which the sludge
plant is completed. Therefore, he charged that the legislature
is going to face a very large bill to have safe water.
8:36:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if perhaps the size of the City of
Unalaska may have captured EPA's attention whereas the size of
other communities may not.
MR. HLADICK said that it's possible, but pointed out that the
population of Unalaska is 3,500 while the population of Bethel
is 7,000. He emphasized that what was a village in 1979 has
changed. In further response to Representative Cissna, Mr.
Hladick confirmed that the industry is hooked into the City of
Unalaska's wastewater treatment system and thus it pays for
wastewater services the city provides.
8:38:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said that this discussion has been a real
eye opener for him. He noted that he has 13 communities on the
list [of communities with waivers]. He expressed concern with
placing extra costs of communities in which the average income
is at the poverty line, particularly when high energy costs are
already an issue. He offered to help with this issue.
8:39:07 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ requested how the earlier mentioned congressional
fix might help the City of Unalaska.
MR. HLADICK clarified that it won't impact the City of Unalaska
in terms of being required to go to advanced primary treatment.
However, adding language in the regulations regarding not going
to secondary treatment may be something in which DEC should be
involved as it adds another layer of protection for the other 76
villages.
8:40:05 AM
MARK LYNCH, City Manager, City of Cordova, related that although
Cordova is not on the list, it has a problem. He informed the
committee that he was notified December 2009 that the City of
Cordova was required to have secondary treatment on its water
supply. The initial estimates for the water treatment work in
Cordova were in the $5-$10 million range or higher. Within the
last couple of months, he said that he became aware of Cordova's
situation with its wastewater treatment plant. The City of
Cordova's permit expired about four years ago and the city had
been in the process of getting the permit renewed. A couple of
months ago, DEC decided to work on the permit and reviewed the
records and the wastewater treatment plant. The DEC informed
the City of Cordova that it was in violation 145 times, the
primary reason he has determined is that in mid 2000 the parts
per million the City of Cordova was allowed to discharge was
reduced from 50,000 to 10,000. He questioned whether there was
an error in the calculation for Cordova's mixing zone, and
therefore CH2MHill has been asked to verify the calculations.
Regardless, it's a cost to Cordova.
MR. LYNCH then turned his comments to what he called common
sense and impact on the citizens. He informed the committee
that EPA passed the LT2 rule regarding drinking water and
cryptosporidium; it was implemented nationwide without
consideration to communities. He related that the City of
Cordova doesn't have cryptosporidium and because of the way the
water source works, it's very unlikely Cordova would ever have
cryptosporidium. The local health nurse and hospital have no
record on file of there ever being an illness caused by
cryptosporidium. However, the LT2 rule will require the
installation of a water treatment plant for cryptosporidium at a
cost of about $10 million, which would result in charges to
residents for water to increase to $120-$150 per month.
Wastewater treatment is also of concern due to the violations
cited. Since Cordova isn't included in the list of communities
with waivers, he predicted that Cordova will be told that it
needs to go to secondary treatment, which engineers estimate
will be $10 million. With the aforementioned upgrades, citizens
would face $250-$300 per month for water and sewer treatment.
The City of Cordova has about 2,000 residents with 700
households. He noted that he has found that there are very few
grants available for these upgrades; rather most of these types
of upgrades are done through low interest loans. Therefore, the
entire cost of these upgrades would be borne by the residents.
He charged that the City of Cordova doesn't need the water
treatment [upgrade to secondary treatment], and furthermore the
citizens can't afford the cost of these upgrades. He, too,
echoed the point that the funds used for these water and sewer
upgrades could be used for economic development and other
infrastructure in the community.
8:46:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled living in Kodiak. She expressed
interest in understanding the cost factor better while paying
attention to safe water. He inquired as to the history of DCCED
and DEC with regard to this issue across the state.
8:48:13 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ surmised that Representative Cissna was interested
in the potential impacts on all 76 communities.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated that to be of interest as well
as obtaining a good understanding of the state's
responsibilities as well. She reminded members that Alaska is
somewhere in the 70th percentile for safe water while the
remainder of the U.S. is in the 99th percentile. Alaska is
trying to catch up with the nation in terms of having safe
communities and providing healthy environments. At the same
time, the costs are mammoth. She expressed interest in having a
background understanding.
8:49:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK questioned how many other communities have
similar concerns to those of Unalaska, but have been unable to
get attention.
8:49:58 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ related her desire to work on a draft letter from
the committee and possibly a resolution that would go to EPA and
Alaska's congressional delegation.
8:50:32 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:50 a.m. to 8:56 a.m.
HB 130-RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
8:56:30 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 130, "An Act relating to municipal building code
requirements for fire sprinkler systems in certain residential
buildings; and providing for an effective date."
8:56:36 AM
ROB EARL, Staff, Representative Bob Herron, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, related that the
purpose of HB 130 is to require an expanded public process for
ordinances that mandate fire sprinklers in all new construction.
The parties interested in this legislation fall into two groups.
The Alaska State Homebuilders Association and the Alaska
Association of Realtors are concerned that a blanket mandate for
sprinklers would raise the cost of homes considerably. The
other side of the issue is the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association,
which promotes expanded installation of fire sprinklers. He
reminded the committee that last year the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee was instrumental in
facilitating a compromise between the aforementioned groups
regarding similar legislation to HB 130. The compromise is
embodied in HB 130. Mr. Earl said that he knows of no
opposition to HB 130, which is neither pro nor anti fire
sprinkler installation and doesn't prohibit Alaskans from
choosing to install such systems. He explained that HB 130 says
a municipality may not adopt an ordinance to require a sprinkler
system in all new residential buildings with one or two dwelling
units, unless the municipality does the following: complies
with the municipal ordinance requirements already in statute;
publishes a summary of the ordinance and the time and place of
each public hearing at least 30 days prior to the first public
hearing of the ordinance; and schedules at least three public
hearings to be held between a 60-180 day period on the proposed
ordinance. Mr. Earl related that the sponsor believes that the
decision about sprinkler systems being required in homes is
appropriate to be decided at the local level, although it
deserves a more robust public hearing process.
8:59:38 AM
JEFF TUCKER, President, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association, thanked
the sponsor and his staff for the work they did on HB 130. He
then related that the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association does not
oppose HB 130 as currently written.
9:00:24 AM
PAUL MICHELSOHN, Co-Chair, Alaska State Homebuilders Association
Legislative Committee, Alaska State Homebuilders Association,
related support for HB 130, which he characterized as a workable
agreement. He opined that HB 130 will provide each individual
jurisdiction notice of proposed changes and provide time to
weigh-in on the matter. He encouraged the committee to pass HB
130.
9:01:36 AM
ERROL CHAMPION, Alaska Board of Realtors, began by stating that
the reasons the Alaska Board of Realtors spoke in support of
similar legislation last year are still valid. He expressed the
need to keep the costs of acquiring homes in Alaska as
inexpensive as possible, which HB 130 will go a long way toward.
Therefore, he urged the committee to adopt HB 130.
9:02:37 AM
WALLY SMITH, Member, Alaska State Homebuilders Association;
Interior Alaska Building Association, echoed Mr. Michelson's
statements and related support for HB 130.
9:03:16 AM
DARRELL BOURNE, President, Interior Alaska Builders Association;
Member of the Alaska State Homebuilders Association, related his
support for HB 130.
9:03:44 AM
ALAN WILSON, Co-Chair, Alaska State Homebuilders Association
Legislative Committee, Alaska State Homebuilders Association,
testified in support of HB 130. However, he related his
personal concerns regarding the cost of housing throughout the
state. The legislation allows each municipality to have a hand
in its own future. Since a mandatory residential fire sprinkler
ordinance would be a significant change, the mandatory three
public hearings are critical, he opined.
9:04:51 AM
GLENDA FEEKEN, Alaska Association of Realtors, related strong
support for HB 130. She stated that realtors encourage
affordable housing. A mandatory residential fire sprinkler
ordinance would cause a dramatic increase in construction,
maintenance, resale, and insurance costs. Therefore, those who
would be impacted by this should be advised of the incredible
burden it will place on them and have input before its adoption.
9:05:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled that last year the legislation
that evolved to what HB 130 is received a letter of support from
the Municipality of Anchorage.
MR. EARL confirmed that was the case.
9:06:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired as to estimates regarding how
much a sprinkler system will add to the cost of an average size
home.
MR. EARL related that he has heard an estimate that sprinkler
systems add $3-$5 per square foot to the cost of an average size
home.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER surmised then that a sprinkler system in a
1,500 square foot home would result in an additional $4,500
cost.
9:07:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report HB 130 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
9:08:11 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:08 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB130 Supporting Documents - Letter Alaska HBA 2-1-2011.pdf |
HCRA 2/8/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 2/8/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Documents - Summary of HB 130 Effects.pdf |
HCRA 2/8/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 130 |