01/21/2004 03:16 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 21, 2004
3:16 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 227
"An Act increasing the jurisdictional limit for small claims and
for magistrates from $7,500 to $10,000; increasing the
jurisdictional limit of district courts in certain civil cases
from $50,000 to $75,000; and amending Rule 11(a)(4), Alaska
District Court Rules of Civil Procedure, relating to service of
process for small claims."
- MOVED HB 227 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 351
"An Act relating to the devices, including carbon monoxide
detection devices, required in dwellings; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 326
"An Act related to tax credits for taxes related to certain
business losses."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 227
SHORT TITLE: DISTRICT COURTS & SMALL CLAIMS
REPRESENTATIVE(S):
03/28/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/03 (H) L&C, JUD
05/14/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/14/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/16/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/16/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/17/03 (H) L&C AT 12:00 AM CAPITOL 17
05/17/03 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to Sun. 5/18/03 --
01/21/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 351
SHORT TITLE: CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTION DEVICES
REPRESENTATIVE(S): GATTO, GRUENBERG
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) L&C, STA
01/21/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 227, and testified as one of
the sponsors of HB 351.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the court does not oppose HB
227 but wishes to remain neutral.
SKIP SCHIEL
Cambridge, Massachusetts
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 351.
JOHN BITNEY, Lobbyist
for Alaska State Home Builders Association
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of his organization's
unanimous support of HB 351.
TOM KEMPTON, Deputy Chief
Anchorage Fire Department
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in strong support of HB 351.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-1, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:16 p.m. Representatives
Anderson, Gatto, Dahlstrom, Lynn, Rokeberg, Crawford, and
Guttenberg were present at the call to order.
CHAIR ANDERSON said he believed that HB 326 was canceled by the
sponsor, Representative Fate.
HB 227-DISTRICT COURTS & SMALL CLAIMS
Number 0066
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 227, "An Act increasing the jurisdictional
limit for small claims and for magistrates from $7,500 to
$10,000; increasing the jurisdictional limit of district courts
in certain civil cases from $50,000 to $75,000; and amending
Rule 11(a)(4), Alaska District Court Rules of Civil Procedure,
relating to service of process for small claims."
Number 0066
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 227 on behalf of the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, sponsor. He testified:
It contains four parts. The first part simply
increases the district court's jurisdiction from
$50,000 to $75,000. We're only talking about civil
jurisdiction here. Section 2 increases small claims
jurisdiction from $7,500 to $10,000. Section 3 tracks
Section 2 with respect to magistrates' jurisdiction
because they hear small claims, increasing it from
$7,500 to $10,000. Section 4 amends a district court
civil rule that presently states you cannot sue an
out-of-state defendant in small claims court. This
will allow you to do so when the cause of action is
based on a debt or a contract of personal injury or
property damage that was incurred while the defendant
was physically present in Alaska.
Let me explain very briefly the reason for all four of
these. As the state has matured and become more
sophisticated, the quality of the district court has
increased and we have people now sitting on that court
who are very good and are highly qualified to hear
larger cases. In addition is the effect of inflation,
which has made money worth less than it was, and we
have, over the years, consistently increased the civil
jurisdiction of the district court. I think it may
have been $25,000 initially. It was quite small, and
now it's certainly up to $50,000, and we would like to
see it go up to $75,000, at least, at a minimum.
Number 0142
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that this bill applies to civil
cases. In Section 1, everywhere in AS 22.15.030(a) that the
figure of $50,000 is mentioned, the figure will be increased to
$75,000. He said he believes procedure, timing, and ability to
get a case to court are faster in district court than in civil
court, where they have complex, larger cases, felonies, family
law cases, and other types of cases. He described small claims
court as streamlined, and the court of the people. He said many
people go to small claims court without attorneys and they don't
have to follow the strict rules of evidence. He reiterated that
HB 227 keeps pace with inflation and increases the civil
jurisdiction to $10,000 from $7,500. Section 3 allows
magistrates to hear cases up to $10,000. He noted that in a
complex case the magistrate can defer to a district court judge.
He stressed that HB 227 gives magistrates in Alaska the
authority to hear these cases.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out with respect to Section 4,
the amendment to the civil rule in small claims [court], that
often defendants in a contract or small case of personal injury
leave Alaska. These defendants may be transferred or are an
out-of-state corporation, but the actions that led to the case
occurred here in Alaska. He described a corporation with an
office here in Alaska, a "nexus here in the state," that was
present in Alaska when it entered into a contract and
subsequently became a defendant. Usually, people going to court
on a small case would have to hire a lawyer to go to court with
them because the defendant was a large corporation and located
out-of-state. He said he feels this is difficult for people.
He observed that the fifth section of HB 227 clarifies that this
bill amends a rule and consequently requires a two-thirds vote
for Section 4 to become effective.
Number 0459
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how Alaska compares to other states in
terms of the dollar limits; would HB 227 bring Alaska into line
with other states?
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied that he couldn't answer this
question because he had not done a survey. He thinks it would.
He clarified that the last time the limits of jurisdiction were
raised for district court was in 1990, from $35,000 to $50,000,
and the limit was raised as recently as 1997 for small claims
court, from $5,000 to $7,500.
Number 0586
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked for clarification on the
procedure followed when there is no response from a person out
of state; who from the court or an Alaskan agency is responsible
for following up?
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG informed Representative Dahlstrom
The process of filing a lawsuit involves filing a
complaint and paying the filing fee. Then you serve
the defendant. There are various ways under Civil
Rule 4 that governs this. There's no difference for
small claims service of summons, except that for small
claims you're not allowed to serve by what's called
"publication." "Publication" is if you can't find
somebody, then you can use public notice. [In the
case of small claims] you either do it by personal
service, you hire a process server or you hire a peace
officer, and they serve it to you or at your current
address or they give it to an adult or somebody of
reasonable age or they can serve it to you on the
street or anyplace.
Second is by certified mail, return receipt requested,
addressed to addressee only, so they have to sign and
then you get a green card back. They have 20 days,
generally, to respond, except the state has (indesc.).
If they don't respond, you can get a default and you
file an application for entry of default and an
affidavit stating, "Such-and-such a date I served the
person and they didn't respond." Here is the proof:
the affidavit of service from the person who served it
or the green card in the mail. The file will reflect
there is no answer, and I request a default." Then
the court enters a default. Then you can get a
default judgment if it is for money, like it is in
small claims. If it's not, you can get a default
hearing, like in a divorce. If it's for a money
judgment, you can also apply for a default judgment at
the same time and the clerk can see [for example] I
lent him $10,000, he has not paid me back, here is the
promissory note and my affidavit that he has not paid
me back. And that's also the complaint and they will
enter a default judgment.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM thanked him for his help "for those of
us who are non-attorneys."
Number 0856
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
stated that the latest information that he has, in answer to a
previous question from Representative Lynn regarding a
comparison of Alaska to other states, is from 2001, when there
were five states with jurisdictional limits above Alaska's
current rate of $7,500. He noted that in two states there is a
match of Alaska's limits and there are 42 states that are below
Alaska's rate, most considerably below. He pointed out that the
"overwhelming" number of states have small claims jurisdiction
limits of two to five thousand dollars. He reported that the
caseload average in small claims court is between 10,000 and
12,000 cases a year, whereas superior court cases average 3,000
to 3,500. He noted that small claims [courts] tend to have a
high volume of cases. He testified:
As is typically the case, the court system doesn't
take a position on this bill in terms of pro or con.
That's our standard policy. We try to leave most of
the policy debates up to you and don't weigh in one
way or the other. We try to point out general
problems that we have with a bill, but we generally
don't weigh in as to whether it's a good idea or a bad
idea.
This bill falls into a gray area between supporting,
opposing, or remaining neutral, and that's because
most judges see a variety of potential problems with
the bill. But the bill is also consistent with the
court's general philosophy, which is to make the court
more accessible, particularly to the growing number of
people who are going to court without an attorney.
Small claims court is the most per se friendly court
and is intended to be, as Representative Gruenberg
said, "the people's court." This bill is consistent
with the philosophy of making that court more
accessible. So our testimony is going to raise
potential problems the judges have pointed out to me
with the bill, and at the end I will try to explain
why we still, despite these problems, are (indisc.)
take that position.
Section 1 of the bill raises the jurisdiction of the
district court of $50,000 to $75,000. The court
doesn't have any objection with this provision.
MR. WOOLIVER went on to say that since this hasn't been raised
in several years it is fair. He reported that several judges
have expressed concern with raising small claims limits because
this might frustrate the general purpose of that court, which is
to move a high volume of low-dollar-value cases through the
system. He noted that it's the general citizen's opportunity to
have his or her case heard before a judge without a lawyer, a
long delay, pretrial motion practice, or depositions. He stated
that the judges are concerned about a $10,000 limit because the
judges think this provision will not actually change the fact
that very few people consider a claim in excess of $7,500 to be
small. He agreed with Representative Gruenberg that one of the
benefits of small claims court is that for people who are not
attorneys there are no complicated pretrial steps. He stated
this also means that the person goes into court with no idea as
to what the opponent "has in their corner." He testified that
the judges believe that most people would not go to small claims
court because of this if the amount of money involved is over
$7,500.
MR. WOOLIVER listed the second concern as the probability that
people in cases involving $10,000 are likely to come to small
claims court with counsel and that the process that lawyers
follow in court will lengthen the time spent in small claims
court, thus causing full-blown and lengthy trials. He offered
that this causes a backup in small claims court.
MR. WOOLIVER noted that most of the time out-of-state hearings
come with a telephonic proceeding. The Alaska Court System
relies heavily on daily telephonic proceedings, which come with
certain problems. He stated that these problems are
particularly difficult in small claims court, where the whole
purpose is to move cases quickly through the system. He listed
the issues: the first problem is getting a person on the phone;
the person may be using a cell phone number that cuts in and out
of reception; then the person isn't necessarily well prepared.
He notes that judges are better able to assess credibility of a
person who is directly in front of them, rather than out of
state.
MR. WOOLIVER said that none of these problems are unique to this
issue and that in this state telephonic proceedings are common.
This bill does not create telephonic problems, but these
problems are exacerbated.
Number 1247
MR. WOOLIVER asserted that this bill will require magistrates to
have additional training, since none of them have had to deal
with out-of-state defendants, except in limited circumstances.
He admitted it will not necessarily be a huge problem because if
a magistrate feels overwhelmed by a case, he/she can refer it to
district court.
MR. WOOLIVER restated that the court does not object to HB 227,
since this bill is consistent with the court's general
philosophy of making the courts more accessible to people so
they can come to court without the assistance of counsel. He
listed several means that the court is using to help citizens
negotiate "this arcane system." He reiterated that the court is
neutral on HB 227 and leaves the legislature to weigh the pros
and cons. He cautioned that this bill helps people but may also
create a process that undermines the whole purpose of small
claims court by making it more costly and time-consuming than it
is intended to be.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if it would be an incentive to
take more cases to small claims court if the limits were raised
on small claims.
MR. WOOLIVER stated that it could, since there is a category of
cases that people are discouraged to bring and indeed don't
bring because they have to go to regular district court. He
voiced that the courts may see more cases, particularly with out
of state defendants, than are being seen at present. However,
he admitted that in the past when the jurisdiction of small
claims court was increased there was no corresponding increase
in cases.
Number 1481
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the requirements for counsel
are in small claims court.
MR. WOOLIVER responded that attorneys may come to small claims
court, but that it is exceptional.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that this bill shifts costs within
the system, and that this may be positive overall.
MR. WOOLIVER responded that it would be positive in those cases
where the superior court is busier than the district court, and
a piece of the superior court's work is moved to the district
court.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the educational requirements
are for magistrates, what the current situation is in the
Anchorage area, and what the impact of this bill might be.
MR. WOOLIVER replied that many magistrates in outlying areas are
not attorneys and sometimes work part-time. In hub areas the
magistrates are attorneys.
MR. WOOLIVER testified that in Anchorage the magistrates operate
differently in that they handle many domestic violence and
traffic cases, with the district court judges handling small
claims cases. He noted that the concerns about training
magistrates will only apply to some parts of Alaska, but not
Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued with his concern about
expanding the jurisdiction of magistrates who have an inadequate
training background to carry out this bill if it becomes law.
Number 1800
MR. WOOLIVER responded that an area of concern with the judges
occurs when tourists or people who fish visit remote
communities, have problems, leave the state and are then named
in a case. He stated that the case would go to the magistrate
but the magistrate can always refer the case to a district court
judge.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked that attention be turned to page
4, line 11, of the bill, commenting that proposed rule 11(a)
(4)(C) would only be applicable if the defendant was present in
Alaska. He expressed curiosity about what would happen if the
defendant was a corporate entity and, if the defendant was
physically present because of conducting business, what the
legal interpretation would be.
MR. WOOLIVER responded that if one does business in Alaska and
has an office here, then that person or entity can be sued in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM stated that her question pertains to
Section 4, line 11, also, because she represents many
constituents, particularly the military, who are physically out
of the state. She asked if this bill would affect them. She
noted that there was an Act, the [federal] Soldiers and Sailors
Civil Relief Act, that protects them while they are defending
the United States. She asked if this had been considered.
Number 2003
MR. WOOLIVER admitted that he does not know the full scope of
that law, but thinks that this bill affects that law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he had a number of points
to add to Mr. Wooliver's answers. He stated that this bill
would not affect the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act,
since this Act mandates that an attorney be appointed to advise
the service person of his/her rights. This bill is intended to
make it easier for people to use the court system without
getting into the formal rules of district court. He conveyed
that nothing in the bill makes it easier for somebody to get
into court in Alaska; it just determines which court, and the
purpose is to expand the lower, simpler, easier, quicker courts.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM voiced an example of a constituent who
is serving in Iraq for an extended time; is that person immune
until he/she returns?
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified:
[The Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act] just makes
sure that the absent service person has the right to a
court-appointed attorney to advise them of their right
to defend themselves. It doesn't stay the action, to
my knowledge; it doesn't give them an in-court
counsel. It is a very minor appointment, simply that
if you are being sued, you have a right to defend
yourself. I'm not aware of anything in Alaska law or
of any federal law that stays a case because of the
[Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act] Act.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG returned to line 11, page 4 of HB 227
and asked what happens if the defendant causes something to
happen when he/she is not physically in Alaska. He gave the
example of being a renter, leaving without telling the landlord,
then not paying the utility bill, and thereby causing the house
to freeze.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG spoke in reply as though he were
advising the landlord:
They could sue on several theories. They could sue
you because you failed to maintain the unit, assuming
you did, under your lease, under the landlord-tenant
Act. And that's already law, and they could already
sue you under that theory. If they just sued you for
negligence, not under the landlord-tenant Act, and if
you failed to pay the bill and the damage occurred
while you, David Guttenberg, were still in Fairbanks,
yes, for that portion of the damage they could sue you
in small claims. Once you skip the state, if
additional damages occurred while you were back in New
York, they couldn't because the damages that occurred
then would not be under this. That would be my
interpretation.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that he is in favor of the bill,
TAPE 04-1, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that it would open up the court to
people who can't afford to be represented by an attorney. He
said $10,000 in this state is not even the price of a used car.
He states he is in favor of the bill.
Number 2345
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if there were any other specific questions
and whether anyone was opposed to moving this bill out today.
Number 2310
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to report HB 227 out of committee
with individual recommendations [and the accompanying fiscal
notes].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for purposes of discussion, and
declared that he wanted to move this bill out of committee with
an "amend" [recommendation], specifically recommending that the
House Judiciary Standing Committee review Section 4 closely. He
expressed concern that Rule 11 would allow magistrates to have
substantially expanded jurisdiction over non-automotive and
landlord-tenant cases. He is concerned about the magistrates'
levels of competency and abilities to handle the complexity.
The tendency here is to favor those who wish to more cheaply
pursue claims, which typically are business people, against the
typical, average-person defendant. He said this interpretation
of the bill makes it more pro-business than pro-people.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that the point is well taken
and continued with clarification that Rule 11 deals with small
claims court and that most of these claims are heard by judges
rather than magistrates. He stated that perhaps inserting
language into the bill that says "except magistrates" would be a
good idea.
Number 2183
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that this insertion would allay
his concerns. He noted, "You still have the small claims
litigant going into district court and being able to use this
out-of-state reach under this addition with a district court
judge supervising the claim."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG removed his objections.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that HB 227 was reported from the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 351-CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTION DEVICES
Number 2162
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 351, "An Act relating to the devices,
including carbon monoxide detection devices, required in
dwellings; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2132
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 351, told the committee that Representative Gatto and he
are both sponsors of this bill and a companion bill that
actually adds arson to the list of compensable violent crimes.
He explained that the bill is designed to save lives by
requiring that by January 1, 2005, all qualifying residents in
the state have carbon monoxide detection devices. On page 2,
Section 4, lines 15-18 defines qualifying dwelling units as
those that contain or are serviced by a gas-fueled appliance or
device, by an oil-fueled device, or by a wood stove or [where
the unit] has an attached garage, he said. Representative
Gruenberg pointed out that an all-electric unit without an
attached garage would have no need for a carbon monoxide
detection device. He went on to say that this bill simply adds
to the smoke detection device legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that HB 351 requires that the
[carbon monoxide detection device] be installed and maintained
in residences and rental units. He referred to page 3, Section
5, lines 10 and 11, where it states that the landlord must
provide the carbon monoxide detection device. On page 3,
Section 5, lines 28 and 29, it states that the tenant shall
maintain the device, he commented. Representative Gruenberg
told the members that this legislation has been enacted in West
Virginia, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and a number of
cities. He added that this legislation came to him through a
national task force that is headed by a woman who lost her child
to carbon monoxide poisoning.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG told the members that Representative
Gatto knows much more about this issue, as he serves as a
firefighter.
Number 1999
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that gas, oil, and wood are
mentioned in the bill, but not coal.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Representative Gatto wanted to
do an amendment to HB 351.
Number 1969
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO displayed a [carbon monoxide] detector and
explained that the digital readout gives an accurate level [of
carbon monoxide] at the moment it is read. The device also
shows the peak level, the highest level since it was last
checked. He said that the device is very easy to use: simply
take it out of the box and plug it into an electrical outlet.
Representative Gatto told the members that carbon monoxide has
the same gravity as air, so there should not be concern that
carbon monoxide would sink down close to the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO shared the story of a family of five that
died from [carbon monoxide poisoning]. They had a detector and
never knew what happened because there was some construction
work being done [on their home] and the detector had been
removed from the wall and disabled. Making this law would not
have saved this family. They made the mistake of taping over
their air intakes to their furnace because the temperatures were
so cold.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO told the members that his primary reason
for supporting this bill is his concern for children. At a
young age, children utilize oxygen at a much faster rate than
adults do. They also "up-take" carbon monoxide at a much faster
rate than adults. As a result, if there is a very minor problem
[of carbon monoxide presence], but it continues on for long
periods of time, which can happen because there is no awareness
of the existing problem, then the children up-take low levels of
carbon monoxide. He went on to tell the committee that a child
that is in this situation goes off to school with carbon
monoxide in his/her blood. It takes five hours to reach the
"half-life," so the child still has some carbon monoxide [level
in his/her blood] when returning home from school and the
process begins again.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO told the members that these devices also
have a time-weighted measurement. The device does not work as a
smoke alarm does, which [sounds when the temperature rises to]
300 or when the smoke is thick. This device will sound an alarm
if the levels are high; if the levels are low, the device will
be measured, and if the levels continue, the device adds them,
he said. He explained that if the levels are low, it could take
two weeks before the device would [sound its alarm]. He told
the members that the device costs $25 and has a battery for
backup.
Number 1727
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO told the members that this condition for
children leads to slower learning and some permanent impairment
if the conditions exist for a long enough period. He said he
would like to see as many of these devices in as many homes as
possible.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO shared that when he was the captain of the
fire department and there was an emergency call, he would have
the emergency crew deal with the medical emergencies, and he
would do a safety check in the house. Many times he would find
a smoke alarm without a battery or with a dead battery. He said
he often would replace it, particularly for elderly persons.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO told the members that, as a firefighter, it
would make his day when arriving at the scene of a fire at 2
a.m. and the [alarm was sounding] because he would assume that
the alarm was heard and that the people were outside the house
and individuals could be accounted for. However, at 2 a.m. with
no noise and a car in the driveway, there was the assumption
that firefighters were facing a rescue.
Number 1577
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO read portions of a letter of support into
the record as follows:
Representative Gatto, or Carl, as they used to call
you in the Providence Emergency Department:
Alaska Safe Kids supports your effort to introduce CO
[carbon monoxide] detection legislation in Alaska.
After working in Alaska nursing for nearly 38 years
and being the statewide Alaska Safe Kids Coalition
coordinator for 15 years, it is evident that CO
poisoning is a preventable injury/death for Alaska
citizen. It is also evident that the general
population knows little about how to protect
themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that he will skip a portion of the
letter and proceed to the conclusion portion as follows:
Moving to legislation really does bring the same
deserved attention to CO as we now have with smoke
detectors.
Thank you, Carl, for your work.
Peggy Hayashi, RN
State Coordinator
Alaska Safe Kids Coalition
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO concluded his remarks by asking the members
to vote yes on this bill.
Number 1524
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that he likes the entire concept
and believes it is a good bill. As a realtor in his other life,
he said he knows the importance of smoke and fire detectors. He
noted that the effective date is January 1, 2005, and asked
whether a friendly amendment might be added such that if title
[to a property] changes between now and 2005 or a new lease is
executed, then at that time a carbon monoxide detector would
have to be installed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that when the initial smoke
detector legislation was passed in 1975, it was made effective
January 1st of the following year. He told the members he would
consider Representative Lynn's suggestion a friendly amendment.
He added that he would defer to Representative Gatto on
including other fossil fuels in the bill. Perhaps this would be
an amendment too.
Number 1453
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that these amendments could be
worked out and brought back before the committee on Friday, when
the bill would be passed from committee.
Number 1436
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG questioned the amendment Representative
Lynn suggested, and asked if there is adequate time for a
transition period. He asked the members to consider that if the
time for enforcement is accelerated, then there needs to be a
rational basis. There should be some implicit time during which
the public is given notification of the change in law.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN replied that he believes that could be
worked out.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he believes these issues could be
worked out and a common solution could be included in the
[resulting proposed] committee substitute (CS).
Number 1382
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there is any intention to do
public service announcements.
[Chair Anderson turned the gavel over to Representative Gatto;
although he was referred to as Vice Chair, technically he was
not.]
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that he has been approached about
public service announcements for the Matanuska-Susitna valley.
He added that he would inquire about that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that on page 2, Section 4,
there is the concept of a qualified dwelling unit. He said what
he believes the sponsors are trying to do is exempt dwellings
with electric heat. Representative Rokeberg told the members
that he is concerned about that because of the definition of the
source of heating element within a dwelling unit. He commented
that this would amend the fire protection statute, AS 18.70, and
the landlord-tenant Act, AS 34.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that the only place the terms
"qualified dwelling unit" appears, if this bill passes, is in
these new sections and nowhere else. That term only appears in
AS 18.70.095(a) and AS 18.70.095(b).
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that his interpretation of that
would mean that any "qualified dwelling unit" would mean any
premise where someone could bed down for the night and that has
a non-electric source of heating. He asked if it is the
sponsors' intention to put these [devices] in every hotel,
motel, and bed and breakfast in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that most of these kinds of
facilities would have electric heat or forced air, not fossil
fuel.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that this would amend the
fire protection code. This bill says that every dwelling unit
in the state will have to have a CO detection device in it.
Number 1157
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked a hypothetical question of
Representative Gatto. Is there a danger of CO [poisoning], for
instance, in a motel that has a hot water furnace in the
basement?
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied that there is not. He stated that
a generating plant that uses fossil fuels to run turbines would
have some danger; however, once the electricity gets to the
[dwelling] there is no danger of CO [poisoning]. There would
have to be some kind of interface with combustion products for a
danger to exist.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether a better term should
be used instead of "service."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that a new term is being
introduced into statutes, "qualified dwelling", and the
interpretation of that could be infinite. He told the members
that his interpretation is that this would be applicable to all
types of dwelling units. Representative Rokeberg added that he
is not sure that is appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied that was not the intent of the
legislation. The intent is to only address [dwelling units]
that CO could get into.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the difference is between a
6-room bed and breakfast and a 600-room hotel.
Number 1060
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied that with the amount of carbon
monoxide produced in a furnace that has access to a room, if the
building is large and the room is remote, a lot could be
satisfied with a smoke detector in the vicinity of the
combustion [source].
Number 1032
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the bill would be a waste of
money unless it was better defined. He questioned whether the
bill would have any effect on public safety.
Number 1003
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied that the point was well taken
and the bill will be worked on further as a committee
substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Representative Gruenberg was
aware of the consequence of failing to install a CO detector in
one's home. He stated that it was a class B misdemeanor, which
would criminalize everyone "in the state." He questioned
whether this should be the intent of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated that many people are criminalized
for not having smoke detectors, but it gives the fire inspectors
heavier weight to be able to say, "By the way, that's illegal."
He gave further examples of ways that people are criminalized
under laws that are not enforced.
Number 0845
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG repeated that laws are enacted that are
not enforced.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he agreed with
Representative Gatto in that this law will save lives. He
stated that he was not aware of any prosecution but it has the
force of law behind it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG called this bill a "paper tiger" and
stated that he didn't think that it was a proper sanction; bad
laws that are not enforced are meaningless.
Number 0787
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that he thought the fact that
the fire department could come in and state that not having CO
detectors is illegal is an important point because most people
want to obey the law. He stated that he would hate to see the
carbon monoxide requirement not put in with smoke detectors
because that would say that it is not as important.
Number 0736
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that he lives in a motel with a
kitchenette and that such rooms would need carbon monoxide
detectors.
Number 0691
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated his intention to hold HB 351 in
order to make revisions.
Number 0673
SKIP SCHIEL, Cambridge, Massachusetts, testified in favor of HB
351. He stated that he lived in a 24-unit apartment that was
heated by oil and that many people, himself included,
experienced CO poison-like symptoms. He explained that even
though the furnace was in the basement, all of the units were
affected, which is a good argument for each unit to have a
carbon monoxide detector.
Number 0464
JOHN BITNEY, Lobbyist for Alaska State Home Builders
Association, spoke on behalf of his organization's unanimous
support of HB 351.
Number 0416
TOM KEMPTON, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Fire Department,
Municipality of Anchorage, spoke in strong support of HB 351.
Since the tragic carbon monoxide poisoning death of the members
of the Arts family, his fire department has been very
aggressively promoting carbon monoxide detectors, he said. He
stated that there has been an increase in calls for alarm-
sounding detectors, and in response to these calls, high levels
of carbon monoxide have been found in several homes.
MR. KEMPTON further explained the need for a battery backup for
the detectors because of the number of power outages and gas-
fired generators owned by Alaskans. He said that often the
generators are not located outside of the home, and that is an
added risk for carbon monoxide poisoning.
Number 0302
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Anchorage had a local ordinance
requiring carbon dioxide monitors.
MR. KEMPTON replied that it does not. The Anchorage assembly is
waiting for the state to see what it does first, he said. He
mentioned that the Arts family did not have a carbon monoxide
detector in their home.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that he had heard that the Arts
family had a detector but that it was unplugged due to
construction.
MR. KEMPTON restated that the family did not have a working unit
and explained that there was a sequence of events which caused
the death.
Number 0148
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that houses are being built much
tighter these days and he wondered if older houses had less of a
problem with carbon monoxide poisoning than the newer ones.
MR. KEMPTON replied that indoor air quality problems are an
issue in Alaskan homes because they are so insulated. However,
one of the states with the highest number of incidents is
Florida because its homes are so tightly insulated to keep out
the heat.
Number 0030
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked questions about combination smoke
and fire detectors, their costs, and whether they can be
hardwired.
MR. KEMPTON answered that carbon monoxide detectors typically
cost $20 to $40 and there are all kinds of combinations. He
recommended one with a battery backup.
TAPE 04-2, SIDE A
Number 0052
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the current requirements for
smoke detectors were and what range they covered.
MR. KEMPTON replied that he was not familiar with local codes,
but the Anchorage Fire Department recommends that people provide
a smoke detector on every level of their home, especially
outside sleeping areas where alarms could be heard. He stated,
"We don't recommend that people install carbon monoxide
detectors in a garage where they would constantly go off."
Number 0139
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO explained that he had five detectors in his
house and gave their locations. He stated that even the one in
the garage works well.
MR. KEMPTON cautioned that people sometimes pull out the
batteries if they get too many nuisance alarms. He said that
the new smoke detectors have new technology on them like pause
buttons.
Number 0312
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Mr. Kempton knew if
insurance companies give reductions for having a carbon monoxide
and/or smoke detector.
MR. KEMPTON answered that he was not aware of any insurance
companies that do. He stated that insurance companies have a
waiver that must be signed requiring smoke detectors, but not
carbon monoxide detectors.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, lines 16 and 17 of
HB 351 that talks about gas fuel, oil fuel, wood stoves. He said
that there was nothing about coal or fossil fuel. He asked if
Mr. Kempton would recommend those be included, too.
Number 0407
MR. KEMPTON replied that that seemed reasonable and agreed that
coal and fossil fuel should be included.
Number 0431
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Mr. Kempton would be willing
to work with the committee on language.
MR. KEMPTON replied that he would.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Kempton if he thought the
language on line 16, "contains or is serviced by", should be
changed to deal with Representative Rokeberg's earlier comment
about the 600-unit motel.
Number 0473
MR. KEMPTON answered that multi-resident units present quite a
burden on the motel owner to install that many detectors. He
said he thought more discussion was needed on this subject. He
stated that the rooms may be protected by a zone detector. Mr.
Kempton agreed to help in this area, also.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated that HB 351 is being held over until
Friday when a proposed CS will be written.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor & Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|