Legislature(2001 - 2002)
08/14/2001 10:55 AM Senate ARR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW
August 14, 2001
10:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Senator Robin Taylor (via teleconference)
Representative Jeannette James (via teleconference)
Representative Joe Hayes
Senator Georgiana Lincoln (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyda Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PUBLIC SAFETY INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
GARY POWELL, Director State Fire Marshal
Division of Fire Prevention
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on pending changes to
regulations.
CHESTER (CHET) WEGER, Former Assistant State Fire Marshal
Division of Fire Prevention
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided historic perspective on pending
changes.
MICHAEL J. STARK, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided legal opinion on authority to
adopt regulations.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Described licensing process and schedule.
ROSS FOSBERG, State Fire Marshal
Division of Fire Prevention
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of State Fire Marshal's
office regarding codes and changes.
JIM FERGUSSON
P.O. Box 11217
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Associated General
Contractors of Alaska.
EUGENE R. RUTLAND, Executive Director
Mechanical Contractors of Alaska
1066 Badger Road
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in opposition to code change.
GLENN CLARY, Minister
[no address provided]
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Described International [Mechanical] Code
cost savings for church construction project.
RON THOMPSON
Building Safety Administration
Municipality of Anchorage
4700 South Bragaw
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for the Building Safety
Administration.
BRIAN BORJESSON, Consulting Engineer
P.O. Box 74715
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Recommended delaying the adoption of new
code, by teleconference.
PAMELA RONNING, President
Anchorage Chapter
International Conference of Building Officials
4700 South Bragaw
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked questions related to continuing
education and licensing of those affected by code change.
JOE GELDHOF, Attorney
229 Fourth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as legal counsel to the
Mechanical Contractors of Alaska.
JAMES GRAY, Plan Review Engineer
Building Safety Administration
Municipality of Anchorage
4700 South Bragaw
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Described efforts to notify and involve
those affected by code change.
BUD KNOX, Owner
Knox Plumbing and Heating
P.O. Box 201516
Anchorage, Alaska, 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he favors the code change
but wants it to go through the legislative process.
BILL SAGER, Executive Director
Mechanical Contractors of Fairbanks
1870 Second Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Recommended that Alaska delay adoption of
new code.
WILLIAM McNEAL, Consulting Engineer
Coffman Engineers
800 F Street
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of adopting the
International Mechanical Code.
JOHN McCOOL, Architect
901 West 27th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99512
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of the state adopting a
single model code group.
MICHAEL MASON, Chief of Building Inspections
Municipality of Anchorage
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650
POSITION STATEMENT: Voiced support for the new code and,
especially, for bringing the International Mechanical Code into
play.
BILL BRUU
165 E. Parks Highway
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Called the code change controversy a
"tempest in a teapot" and recommended centralizing all code
applications under a single state agency.
KIM ROSS, Staff
to Senator Randy Phillips
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 103
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented summary of testimony given in two
meetings with Senator Phillips' Eagle River and Anchorage
constituents.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-17, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGuire called the Joint Committee on Administrative
Regulation Review meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
Representatives McGuire, Taylor (via teleconference), and James
(via teleconference) were present at the call to order.
Representatives Hayes and Lincoln joined the meeting via
teleconference as it was in progress.
PUBLIC SAFETY INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the only item on the agenda was the new
Public Safety International Building Code Regulations scheduled
to be put in place September 15, 2001.
Number 0032
GARY POWELL, Director State Fire Marshal, Division of Fire
Prevention, Department of Public Safety, came forward to
testify. He noted that he had given committee members a full
packet of information related to the regulations.
MR. POWELL directed attention to a time line in the packet
showing when the Division of Fire Prevention made certain
parties aware of its intention [to adopt regulations consistent
with the International Building Code]. He pointed out that the
Office of Management and Budget [in the Office of the Governor]
was first apprised in a meeting October 13, 1999, and that the
regulation changes were reflected in the governor's office
budget of December 15, 1999; the House Finance Subcommittee was
briefed February 22, 1999, and the Senate Finance Committee on
March 20, 1999.
Number 0051
CHESTER (CHET) WEGER, former Assistant State Fire Marshal,
Division of Fire Prevention, Department of Public Safety, came
forward to testify. He said that work on development of the
International Code had started in the State Fire Marshal's
office in about 1991 when Jack McGarry was fire marshal. Mr.
McGarry attended the ICBO [International Conference of Building
Officials] meetings on codes until about 1993, and then Mr.
Weger began attending the meetings on the fire code while Mr.
McGarry continued attending meetings on the building code. The
three major code organizations (ICBO, Southern, and BOCA) in the
United States had been asked to work together to develop a
single code for the United States -- one building code, one fire
code, one mechanical code, one plumbing code -- so that if a
company were building in more than one part of the country, the
same code would apply in all locations. The codes put into the
mixture by the ICBO were the Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform
Fire Code, and Uniform Building Code. He emphasized that the
International Code "didn't just happen," but was based on work
beginning in the early 1990s in meetings held all over the
country. There is nothing in the resulting code that was not in
one of the three basic codes that came out of those three
organizations, he explained. Those three codes were
consolidated into the one International Code. The only premise
used by the fire marshal's office regarding adoption of the
International Code was to do what was best for the State of
Alaska as per Alaska statute AK 18.70, he emphasized.
Number 0088
CHAIR McGUIRE asked for specific examples of something being
best for the state.
Number 0090
MR. WEGER said they thought that a family of codes -- a building
code, fire code, and mechanical code that worked together, were
coordinated -- would be the easiest for designers across the
state to use. There are some organizations that are trying to
fight the movement toward the International Code, he asserted,
"but the truth of the matter is, ... eventually, the
International Building Code, International Fire [Code] and
International Mechanical Code will be the code that's used
across the United States."
Number 0099
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she wished to focus on what she has
been hearing from the people who are the cause of holding the
committee meeting. She said she thinks nobody objects to going
to the International Code eventually, but this [change] is a
"big bite" to be taken by the regulatory process rather than by
the statutory process, "and if we are going to do this, we
should tie all of our statutes together and we should have had
legislative process because we get more input from a legislative
process than from a regulatory review process." She asked why
the state fire marshal's office saw fit to do this entirely by
regulation.
Number 0136
MR. POWELL explained that AS 18.70.080 (b) says that the state
fire marshal's office "will adopt the standards for building and
fire in the State of Alaska by regulation." The statute giving
the state fire marshal that responsibility dates back to at lest
the 1970s, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that the statute gives the fire
marshal that [regulatory] responsibility, but explained that she
also thinks it needs to have statutory underpinning. She
expressed concern that there is conflict in the statutes that
can't be overridden by regulations.
MR. POWELL said he did not understand the point. "When [AS}
18.70 says that the state fire marshal will set the standards
for building and fire safety in buildings in the State of
Alaska, those standards ... [are] what we're adopting with these
codes."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified her concern, saying the issue
isn't whether or not to go to the International Building Code;
the issue is when and how.
Number 0136
MR. POWELL said the attorney with whom the state fire marshal's
office has been working throughout the entire process is
available via teleconference and could address the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said her point in calling this meeting was
that although, technically, the fire marshal's office may have
the authority to do this by September 15, she wondered if that
is a good idea and whether more time is needed to implement the
change. She said the timing is the whole issue.
Number 0149
MICHAEL J. STARK, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, testified
via teleconference. He said he could address some but not all
of Representative James' concerns. He said questions about
timing and safety might better be addressed by the fire
marshal's office and those in the Division of Occupational
Licensing, Department of Community and Economic Development, who
have to test and certify those who are going to be enforcing the
code.
MR. STARK affirmed his belief that the statutes, as now drafted,
support the adoption of the International codes. He thinks
Representative James is correct that there are some
inconsistencies in the ... [statutes], such as references to
"Uniform" codes as opposed to "International [codes]," and it
would be helpful to clarify that in the coming legislative
session and to reconcile any conflicts, but he thinks the
authority is there to adopt the International Code, as these
regulations do. "We think if the court were to address the
issue and look at all of the relevant statutes as a whole, they
would find that the regulations being adopted are consistent
with the authorizing statute," he said. That is the very narrow
legal response, he explained. "The bottom line is not a
question of whether this is a good idea, because in our review
over the past several months, we've become strongly convinced by
the state fire marshal's office that this is the right policy
decision, that it is in the best interest of the people of the
state, it's safe," he stated, expressing hope that the state
fire marshal's office would have the opportunity to address that
today. "As for the timing and the testing question,
certification and so on, I think those questions would be more
appropriately addressed to Ms. [Catherine] Reardon [Director] or
to other folks from [the Division of] Occupational ...
Licensing."
CHAIR McGUIRE thanked Mr. Stark for providing the legal backdrop
that, narrowly interpreted, there is the authority to change the
regulations. She said she thinks Representative James' question
pertains more to the practicality, "the costs that are
associated with it that will be incurred by local builders and
how they are going to meet those in this very narrow time
frame."
Number 0188
SENATOR LINCOLN [who had joined the meeting by teleconference]
sought clarification of the identities of those who had
testified.
Number 0198
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development testified by
teleconference. She explained that her division is part of the
discussion because it licenses mechanical contractors and
mechanical administrators. "In our mechanical administrator
statutes, there are references to the code," she said. "From
the department and the division's perspective, we have no
knowledge or role in ... the debate over which code is better,
... [whether] the code should be changed," she said. "We are
simply the folks who will making some adjustments in response to
the revision or the change in the code."
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Ms. Reardon to speak to the question Mr.
Powell had referred to her
MR. POWELL asked Ms. Reardon to address the issue of whether
licenses will continue, whether license holders can they get the
training to renew their licenses when they are due, and whether
the change in regulations is going to create an undue hardship
on the licensed individuals.
MS. REARDON explained that mechanical administrators are people
who have experience and an examination to determine that they
have knowledge of the building and mechanical codes. They are
employed by or are the same person as the mechanical
contractors. "In other words, in order to do mechanical
contractor work, you have to be or employ a mechanical
administrator," she said. She thinks the purpose of this law is
to ensure that there is someone within mechanical contractor
businesses who can assure that the work they do is up to code.
MS. REARDON explained that mechanical administrator licenses
expire every two years. "They will expire August 31, 2001, so
mechanical administrators are in the process of renewing their
licenses right now and when they renew, they indicate that they
have done continuing education during the previous two years to
keep up their competency in their subject area," she said. So
mechanical administrators will be able to renew their licenses
now without being impacted by the change in the code. However,
they will need to familiarize themselves with the International
Code in order to continue doing their work. In the coming two
years, they can go and get continuing education, which they will
be needing to get anyway for the [2003-2004] licensing period.
They could decide to get that training earlier if they felt that
they needed it in order to do their job, but we [the division]
will not be re-testing those people or taking away their
licenses because of the code change, Ms. Reardon said.
Number 0245
CHAIR McGUIRE asked when the Division of Occupational Licensing
planned to have the tests rewritten and require folks to have
qualified under the International Code.
MS. REARDON explained that the division obtains its tests from
the private sector, currently from a company called Excelsior.
The division has told the company that Alaska wants to revise
its examination so that it is based on the International Code
instead of the Uniform Code, and has asked how long that will
take and how much the revision will cost. The company has not
yet given a final response, but Ms. Reardon anticipated that the
revision could be complete by November. There are seven
different versions of the exam reflecting the type of
administrative work a person does. She said the existing
version of the exam, based on the Uniform Code, will be given
the day before the code change takes effect, on September 14.
The test is given quarterly, and the next one, scheduled for
December 14, would probably be the new version based on the
International Code.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Ms. Reardon if she knew the approximate cost
that would be incurred by the state.
MS. REARDON said she did not have a final figure from the
contractor, but had contacted the testing service during the
public comment period and had gotten an informal indication that
it will cost about $2,000 for each of the seven exams that need
to be revised, so the division is "thinking in the $14,000
range."
Number 0283
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what opportunity there will be for
those folks who are taking the test in December to prepare for
it.
MS. REARDON replied that when the code changes September 15,
potential licensees will know that. As soon as the state has a
firm contract with the exam company, the Division of Licensing
can tell applicants when the test based on the International
Code will be given, "so that should give them some notice that
that's what they need to study up on."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Reardon if she thought that was
enough time for such a big change.
MS. REARDON said she did not know how much there is for
applicants to learn, but that there are three months between the
times the code changes and the time she will begin testing based
on the change, and that seemed reasonable. She suggested the
question about the extent of the change be directed to Mr.
Powell.
Number 0307
MR. POWELL replied, "We don't think it's fair to characterize
this as such a big change." He reiterated that there is nothing
that is really new, but that the content has just been
rearranged a bit. The tests are open-book tests, and the
changes are nothing that is new to the industry, he said. He
thinks the new code allows more flexibility than the previous
one, he said. He suggested calling upon Ross Fosberg, the code
adoption coordinator who studied the codes and was directly
involved with the various work groups.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Fosberg if he believes there are major
differences. She noted that she has looked at the two codes and
said she thinks it is fair to say there are a lot of
similarities. She continued:
But certainly you've got a contracting community
that's been working with a certain set of regulations
and a certain code for many, many years, and there is
certainly a concern ... on the part of this committee
... as to whether or not three months is going to be a
sufficient period of time for people to get up to
speed on the new International Code and to be able to
be proficient enough to go ahead and get licensed in
that area, and I think that's really the concern that
we have. I think that there is no question that there
will be some day that we do move to this international
code. It's a question of timing and grace periods and
the impact on the building community.
Number 0329
ROSS FOSBERG, State Fire Marshall, Division of Fire Prevention,
Department of Public Safety, asked Ms. Reardon if those who
currently have administrator's licenses have to renew those
licenses by the end of September 2001.
MS. REARDON replied that they have until the end of August to do
so.
MR. FOSBERG asked if anyone applying and taking the test in
December would therefore be a new applicant for the
administrator's license.
MS. REARDON confirmed that was correct.
MR. FOSBERG summarized, "So we're not talking about those who
are currently in the field with licenses having to within three
months come up to speed totally on this brand new code." He
asked if the testing is based on the code "as published,"
without the local state amendments or revisions to it.
MS. REARDON said she was not certain, that she thought the test
is on the codes that are in effect in Alaska,
MR. FOSBERG explained that he asked that question because all of
the codes (mechanical, building, fire, electrical, plumbing,
etc.) go through a three-year cycle as changes are adopted. So
every three years, everyone faces a revised code that is going
into effect. Each time an adoption cycle comes up, those who
hold licenses take the continuing education courses and show
their qualifications under the new version.
MR. FOSBERG directed attention to the first letter in the packet
under "Correspondence History," a letter from Gregory Johnson,
chairman of the Anchorage Mechanical Board, in which he reviews
the issue of adoption, explaining it "clearly and succinctly and
in an unbiased manner."
MR. FOSBERG said although the codes differ, the principles and
standards are the same. The person needs to know two things,
the mechanical (or other specialty) code and the state fire
regulations. No one knows it all perfectly, and all of them
have to look things up. The test indicates a general level of
expertise that is expected, but the test is only about one-fifth
of what is required for licensing.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that there is a statement made on the page
to which Mr. Fosberg was referring that says the International
Mechanical Code will allow for innovations that lead toward
construction cost savings. She asked why that statement had
been made.
MR. FOSBERG explained that the current Uniform Mechanical Code
is very prescriptive, while the International code generally
allows more than one way to comply.
Number 0433
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the fire marshal's inspection is
going to agree with the mechanical engineer if the requirements
are not specific. She said she understood the desire to go
forward and tended to agree with that. She explained her concern
involves the "short period of time for these people to get on
board." She said she thinks the majority of the protest is
coming from people with a dogmatic point of view who are
resistant to change and have not made an in-depth comparison of
the two documents, but added that she does not think there is
any way one can make a side-by-side comparison of the two
documents. She asked if there was not some reason to believe
"that these are the people who really want to not have any
problem?"
MR. POWELL said he was not sure he understood the last part of
her question.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she does not like to accuse opponents
of coming from a dogmatic point of view and being resistant to
change, "because I don't think that's true and I don't like that
statement and that's why I'm asking you if you believe that
statement as well."
MR. POWELL said he would like to address her first question,
which had to do with the approval of an installation by the fire
marshal's office. He explained that the fire marshal's office
reviews the plans before construction begins and works with the
architects and engineers, and if the proposed installation is
legal according to the code, then the fire marshal's office
stamps the plans as approved. The contractor is expected to
install according to the approved plan. If the fire marshal
goes on site some years later and finds that was not done, then
the installation would not be compliant, he said; but the issue
is resolved 99 percent of the time in the plan review process,
which catches those things before construction begins.
Number 0450
SENATOR TAYLOR observed that some committee members have been
through "code wars" before, He recalled a "huge fight" over
plastic versus copper pipe and lawsuits filed during the
Sheffield administration by people seeking electrical licenses.
"So," he explained, "when we start talking about ... adopting a
new International Code, expecting the mechanical and electrical
and plumbing and all the rest of the folks out there ... to
comply with a ... 'new test' on a new code and do it in about
three months, I guess I'm one of those people that's a bit
dogmatic and resistant to change because I've seen change in the
past be misused by administrations in their interpretation ...."
He went on to say he believes that everyone is acting in good
faith, but expressed concern "that this thing is happening as
quickly as it is and ... that the small contractor, in
particular, may have a very difficult time becoming current
enough so as to pass the exam." He specifically expressed
concern about the exam, who will be conducting it, and who will
be selecting the people who conduct it. He asked to hear from
some of the people who share those concerns.
Number 0554
MR. FOSBERG clarified that those who currently have licenses
will not have to take the test for two years; only new
applicants for licensing would have to take the new test in the
interim. He went on to affirm that one of the strong points of
this adoption process is that all of the major communities
affected have coordinated their efforts "so that there are not
the conflicts between the codes and the lack of coordination
that existed in times past." He recalled a time in the 1970s
when the state was two code editions behind the Municipality of
Anchorage. "The strength of this whole process over the last
year has been this coordination with the design community, the
construction community, the enforcement community, and, in fact,
the contracting community..." Twenty-nine of the 50 states have
already adopted the new code, so Alaska is not out of step on
this, he added.
TAPE 01-17, SIDE B
CHAIR McGUIRE asked the state personnel to stand by while others
expressed their concerns.
JIM FERGUSSON, of Anchorage, came forward to testify on behalf
of the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Alaska. He said
it is critical to understand that this code does not exist in a
vacuum, but that an entire industry has related codes that need
to interact. He said AGC of Alaska represents more than 600
contractors. "AGC of Alaska represents the industry," he said.
"We are very much concerned with this adoption and a very short
notice." Although Fire Marshal Powell had testified that the
industry had been involved, Mr. Fergusson said he did not know
how or when.
MR. FERGUSSON stated that the industry does not need two codes.
He expressed concern about materials and about contractors
having to meet the standards of two organizations. He asked if
for a while, all those involved in the industry were going to
have two different codes with which to comply. The codes'
"being almost the same won't work," and having two competing
codes is not good for the industry, he said. He stated that the
present code works and is being revised on a three-year cycle,
and that the AGC does not want it changed. He expressed concern
about creating "a very confusing mess for the industry."
Number 0050
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Fergusson to estimate the cost that
would be incurred by the industry.
MR. FERGUSSON said he wished he could give an answer, but that
he just did not know.
Number 0064
CHAIR McGUIRE directed attention to a letter from Gregory
Johnson, P.E., a senior associate mechanical engineer, in which
it says, "The general prescriptive approach of the IMC will
allow for innovations that lead toward construction cost
savings." She asked Mr. Fergusson if he believed that to be an
accurate statement.
MR. FERGUSSON noted that he, too, is a professional engineer as
well as a licensed general contractor. He said the Uniform
Building Code, as it currently exists, provides for alternate
means and methods, and that he could not answer the question
more specifically than that.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked if he thought in the long run there would be
cost savings associated with changing to the International Code.
MR. FERGUSSON replied, "Obviously, there should be." He added
that both codes are evolving and he thinks that is the important
thing.
Number 0081
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said her concern is that those currently
licensed as mechanical engineers will be tested and re-licensed
by the end of August 2001, but starting in December, "we have a
whole new crew that are going to be tested on a different
level." She thought it would be better "to give sufficient time
for people to be taking these tests so that we have everybody
singing from the same sheet of music and having passed that
test, which would make it be on August 31, 2003." She asked Mr.
Fergusson if he sees a problem in implementing the code change
according to the schedule. She expressed concern about people
not being aware that regulatory change was pending, and asked,
"Would some additional time to get prepared for this new code be
advantageous to you and your people."
MR. FERGUSSON answered, "Absolutely. I can tell you it is not
general knowledge in the industry that this has been out there."
CHAIR McGUIRE referred to the earlier statement made by the
state fire marshal's office that the industry had been involved
and brought to the table, and noted that Mr. Fergusson was
countering that. "To your knowledge, ... were there people
called into the public testimony ...?"
MR. FERGUSSON concurred with Representative James that it is
hard to know all and see all. He said he had been working with
the Municipality of Anchorage on building code issues monthly
for the past three years, and "I would think either in that
arena or through the AGC or the AGC legislative office we would
have heard of this."
Number 0121
MR. FOSBERG said the state fire marshal's records indicate that
those involved from the general contractors' area were Reuben
Shirrell [ph.], Consolidated Enterprises, who was on one of the
advisory groups, and that a letter had been sent to the AGC
asking that group to participate. "In fact," he testified, "I
talked personally with the administrative assistant, and they
said they would pass that along and we invited them to
participate, and this is the individual that represented that he
had ... [inaud.] by that organization."
Number 0158
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that there is perception and there is
reality, and although the reality may be that they brought
somebody to the table, there is a perception that many folks in
the contracting community did not know about the change and feel
they are getting late notice. She observed that it may not be
good public policy to rush something through when there is some
confusion about public notice, and asked Mr. Fosberg if he would
consider extending the timeline in any way.
MR. FOSBERG deferred to the fire marshal's office the questions
concerning public policy. However, he said he knew that one of
the key things the fire marshal's office did with the code
adoption process in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Soldotna
was to provide them, as part of the discussion process, all of
the codes the fire marshal's office was adopting and the local
amendments or revisions that would need to be made. He said he
was personally involved with the building and fire committees in
Anchorage, and that the other communities are working from
Anchorage's update via Internet. "So," he said, "our process
... has been very similar." In each of the communities, it is a
three to four-month process of going through the analysis of the
code with committees of 15-20 people at the municipal level.
The names of those involved in each of the communities are
listed in the packet, he noted.
CHAIR McGUIRE said her question is, "What's the rush?" She
wondered if there is some deadline the fire marshal's office is
trying to meet for funding or some other reason. "Is there any
particular reason why September 15 has to be the date?" she
asked. "The reality is you've got a room full of 35 folks here,
many of who feel that they weren't involved in the process, that
they didn't have notice, and that they are going to be rushed
...."
MR. FOSBERG explained that there were two public notice
processes, the first one starting in December and ending 45 days
later. The second process began when a notification error was
discovered in certain areas, he said. Because of that, all of
the mechanical contractors (more than 700) were notified again,
and of that number, 50 responded. Mr. Fosberg mentioned that he
has worked with Mr. Fergusson on another building code (not part
of the state regulations) that the Municipality of Anchorage is
developing and in which Mr. Fergusson has a particular interest.
Mr. Fosberg went on to explain that years ago, most code changes
were made "in house," with little notice. Now there is a set
process and a certain amount of time allowed, and "I believe we
do the best we can to get the organizations involved," he said.
Number 0158
CHAIR McGUIRE repeated her question, "What would be the harm, if
any, in extending [adoption of the International Code] beyond
September 15?"
Number 0214
MR. POWELL explained that the primary concern is to have
uniformity among the codes throughout the state. "Our goal from
the beginning was to get all the parties together and on a
similar time schedule so that we don't create ... chaos for the
construction community or the design community," he emphasized.
CHAIR McGUIRE observed, "But isn't it ironic that you're hearing
that that's the very complaint?"
MR. POWELL replied, "I think we need to put it in perspective;
in all honesty, we're hearing from one small [inaud.] out of 40
or 50 that were involved in the process. Everyone else seems to
be perfectly happy with it, and I wonder if there aren't other
motives than have been expressed today."
Number 0216
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said:
I resent that last comment that he made; I think it
was improper. But ... the problem that I see is that
it wouldn't hurt to set aside those ... codes that
relate to the mechanical contractors ... because ...
the same people who are going to be licensed for the
next two years are going to be licensed under the
Uniform Mechanical Code, and then all of those new
people are going to be licensed under the IMC. Now
you're telling me there's no difference between the
two. If there's no difference between the two, why do
we have to have new regs to implement them? ... I
think you'll find some people out there right now, and
I don't have their names, that had previously said
yes, this is a good idea, who are now beginning to see
that this is a complicated issue and is going to cause
us some problems. So I don't want to have it that
this is just a small group of people who ... are
having some sort of a "don't want any change"
attitude, because that is not necessarily the
conversation I've had with many of these folks and I
want that to be on the record.
Number 0234
SENATOR LINCOLN expressed confusion. She thought she had heard
testimony that Fairbanks has already adopted the Uniform Code,
and she wanted to know which other communities had adopted it
and whether they also go through an adoption process that
includes testimony from local unions and contractors.
MR. FOSBERG explained that Fairbanks has adopted the
International Building Code and the International Fire Code,
while the International Mechanical Code is still undergoing
review. A code goes through the Assembly and a committee
process in each of the jurisdictions. He said that Anchorage
has a Building Board with about 18 committees considering the
various codes, and up to 20 people on each of those committees
providing input. Those committees involve contractors as well
as design professionals and building managers. The committees
bring their recommendations back to the Building Board. The
Building Board takes public testimony and goes forward with
those codes after that public testimony and any changes that may
come out of it. Usually, the code is reviewed by the Law
Department and then goes before the Assembly. That is the case
in Anchorage and Fairbanks, and he presumes it is the same in
Soldotna and Juneau and other areas; that is the general
practice at a municipal level.
MR. FOSBERG said the state approach is a little different
because it is regulatory rather than being adopted as a
municipal statute.
SENATOR LINCOLN summarized, "So basically what you are saying is
that all but the mechanical code has been adopted by the
community."
MR. FOSBERG said that was the case in Fairbanks.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked why the mechanical code has not been
adopted there.
MR. FOSBERG did not know, and asked if someone from Fairbanks
was present and could answer her question. No one from
Fairbanks responded, but a review committee member from
Anchorage told him that the committee and Building Board there
[in Fairbanks] had approved the mechanical code, and that the
recommendation to adopt it is being forwarded to the Assembly.
EUGENE R. RUTLAND, Executive Director, Mechanical Contractors of
Alaska, came forward to testify. He said the organization was
made up of mechanical contractors from Fairbanks and Anchorage.
All of them are licensed both as administrators and as
mechanical contractors. He said he does not belong to the
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials
or to any labor union.
MR. RUTLAND wished to read into the record a letter he had
written to every [Alaska state] senator and representative on
July 30, 2001:
There is a controversy in our state surrounding the
adoption of the mechanical code, and a good chance
that this controversy will be a topic of legislation
in the 2002 session. The purpose of this letter is to
provide some background and information from the
perspective of the mechanical contractors and the
mechanical administrators who are licensed under state
statutes 08.40.210, 08.40.270(3), 08.40.320 (a) (2),
08.40.490 (3)(A) (B), and 08.18.171 (7).
As enacted by the legislature, these statutes require
mechanical contractors to install or modify their work
in accordance with a family of uniform codes;
specifically, Uniform Plumbing Code; Uniform Swimming
Pool, Spa, and Hot Tub Code; Uniform Solar Energy
Code; and the Uniform Mechanical Code. The State Fire
Marshal, without coordinating with other agencies, has
proposed repeal of the Uniform Mechanical Code and,
instead, seeks to adopt the International Mechanical
Code. This was done despite strenuous objections from
those mechanical professionals licensed under the
Uniform Mechanical Code per statute. The basic
problem, as we see it, is one agency seeks to adopt a
new substantive code while another agency can only
license mechanical contractors under a different code.
We think the proposed code will ill serve the public
and our members. We're opposed to this method of
repealing the Uniform Mechanical Code and will
continue to fight this repeal until such a time as the
legislature clears up the chaos created by the Fire
Marshal and the Department of Public Safety.
In the Department of Public Safety [DPS] budget
request, Change Record Detail With Description dated
12-17-1999, the DPS asked for $98,100 for extensive
code regulation project. At the date of this budget
request, the codes DPS proposed to accept had not yet
been published. According to the flyleaf in the front
of these codes, they are published as follows. The
2000 International Residential Code was published in
January of 2000, 2000 International Fire Code was
published December 1999, 2000 International Building
[Code] published March 2000, 2000 International
Mechanical Code published December 1999. For some
reason, the DPS did not proceed to adopt the
International Residential Code. We're puzzled how DPS
could consider adopting codes before they are
published.
The budget request goes on to conclude that other
model codes are no longer available. This is
incorrect. The Uniform Plumbing Code; Uniform
Mechanical Code; Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa, and Hot
Tub Code; and the Uniform Solar Energy Code are still
being published by the International Association of
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IATMO) as they have
always published these codes. Also, the Uniform Fire
Code was developed and published by the Western Fire
Chiefs Association (WFCA). A 2000 edition has been
published.
In summary, the 2000 edition of the family of Uniform
Codes listed above are in use across the United
States. The are still available despite what DPS
states in their budget request. Based on the
information we have to date, the only code body to
pull out of the Uniform family was the International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), the
organization of which the fire marshal is a member.
What we have in this situation is one splinter group
seeking to adopt a new and untested code. Frankly,
our members and the public should not be required to
participate in this experiment.
The DPS statement that FEMA will not fully fund
disasters in our state unless we adopt the
International Codes is wrong. The State of California
recently re-adopted the Uniform Codes after a review
process that lasted more than a year. They would not
have taken this action if it would risk losing FEMA
disaster funding.
The DPS statement that failure to adopt the
International codes will make it more costly for
companies to build in Alaska is puzzling. Others at
DPS know that the new code will reduce the cost of
building in Alaska. Where's the documentation?
Common sense suggests that the adoption of any new
regulatory code will increase building costs, at least
initially.
The DPS statement that major cities in Alaska, all of
whose chief building officials are ICBO members, plan
to adopt the new rules, the new codes, is true. But
these chief building officials point to the state's
plan to adopt the new International Codes as their
justification to adopt these codes. This kind of
bureaucratic self-justification is driving the
adoption of the International Codes. It is clear that
DPS manufactured an artificial crisis and rammed
through this regulation project to fix the phony
problem. This fix has and will cost hundreds of
mechanical contractors and the public thousands of
hours of time and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
We ask, "For what purpose?" To those of us caught in
the middle of this bureaucratic turf fight, there's no
valid reason to adopt new, untested code.
At the next code cycle, 2003, there will be a new,
integrated family of model consensus code (NFP 5000),
the "Consensus Code" set. This family of codes will
contain the NFPA Building Code; a joint NFPA-WFCA fire
code; Uniform Mechanical Code; Uniform Plumbing Code;
Uniform Swimming Pool, [Spa] and Hot Tub Code; Uniform
Solar Energy Code; and the National Electrical Code.
The last four of these codes will still be in effect
in our state at that time because the statutes require
the Department of Labor to adopt these specific codes.
Let us take our time and fairly examine both code sets
before we rush to judgment. This is what California
and Oregon are doing. It makes no sense to adopt new
codes piecemeal, particularly where the statutes
governing testing and licensing are at odds with the
proposed International Codes. At the federal level,
the government agencies are encouraging the
development of model consensus codes. Consensus is
defined in Office of Management and Budget Bulletin
A119 by the attributes of openness, a balance of
interests, due process, and an appeals process. The
International Codes do meet [these] criteria, in my
opinion. Please use your good offices to make sure
the regulation adoption process works as the
legislature intended, and the interests of all
stakeholders are considered, not just the interests of
the few building officials more concerned with their
own turf than the interests of the public.
Number 0407
MR. RUTLAND added that since this is a regulation review
committee, he would like to comment on my experience with the
last regulation process. "I have an organization behind me," he
said, "and I've found it very difficult to make any impression
on the regulators during this regulatory process. They're judge
and jury of any comments ... or suggestions that you make. I
would like to see legislation that not only levels the playing
field, but tilts it toward the public so the bureaucrat has to
run uphill and not the public."
Number 0423
SENATOR TAYLOR said he would like the state fire marshal's
office to respond to the "very strong" comments made by the last
witness.
Number 0431
MR. POWELL began with the statement that he has a different
perspective on most of the letter, but thinks some very good
points were made as well. He said the perception that we did
this without coordination with other agencies was not accurate
in his opinion.
Number 0530
SENATOR TAYLOR interrupted, saying he was not really concerned
about coordination with other agencies. "What I'm concerned
about is the comments that he's just made about the codes that
are currently adopted, those that are going to be adopted in the
future, and whether or not there was any input provided from the
general contactors and the mechanical contractors and so on."
He asked Mr. Powell to go through the letter that Mr. Rutland
had read and respond to it.
MR. POWELL resumed his testimony, saying, "We think the issue of
licensing was a very valid issue that was raised." He recalled
that the issue had been raised early in the process and that the
fire marshal's office had worked with Department of Law to make
sure that things were doing things appropriately. The legal
advice was followed, he said, and that advice was that whatever
code they adopted, then the respective changes would be made [in
licensing].
MR. POWELL said that as far as the codes that are available,
there is no other building code available, and he believes the
building code is the cornerstone upon which all the other codes
-- such as fire code and mechanical code -- are based. We feel
in our office that it is crucial that the three work together,
he said, adding that the fire marshal's office considers that to
be a life-safety issues.
MR. POWELL disagreed with the assertion that a "splinter group"
is sponsoring the new code. He explained that in the past,
there had been three primary organizations that published their
own codes. Together, they covered the whole U.S "Those three
came together to write this one, single code, and that's what we
have before us," he said. "It is not a splinter group; it is a
new group that is a partnership of three at this time."
MR. POWELL noted that a point had been raised about his ICBO
membership. "That's only because I am the state fire marshal,"
he said. "It's not because of my personal representation. I'm
also a member of NFPA and other professional organizations that
have other positions on this issue ...," and he volunteered to
discuss that more if anyone wished to do so.
MR. POWELL mentioned that reference had been made to California
and Oregon, and noted that there are many other states that have
adopted [the International codes]. He said that [contrary to
what the letter said], Oregon has adopted the International
Mechanical Code. "The International Mechanical [Code] is being
adopted across the country; it's not like we're trying some
experiment on the people of Alaska. We feel that we've thought
this out well and that we are making a decision that's best in
the interest [of the state]."
MR. POWELL addressed the issue of cost savings. "We have
documented cases of cost savings," he said, and volunteered to
provide figures. He said seminars are being given to
demonstrate how to save money by taking advantage of some of the
provisions of the International Codes. He cited the example of
the police station in Fairbanks and a large educational facility
in Anchorage that were designed under the International codes,
resulting in significant savings. "I think there's irrefutable
evidence that there are cost savings available in the new codes
and it is a good thing for industry," he concluded.
SENATOR TAYLOR then asked Mr. Rutland to respond to what the
fire marshal had said.
Number 0530
MR. RUTLAND said, "The only comment that sticks in my mind, the
two examples cited by the fire marshal of cost savings under the
... International Building code, since those are brand new
projects and they were bid only under one code, I don't think we
can deduce anything from the bid results about whether there was
a saving...."
Number 0540
MR. FOSBURG said the Anchorage School District had come in over
budget on [cost estimates] for three current school construction
projects, which had been designed under the Uniform Building
Code. He said he was asked to review those on the private side
and to do a code study for them. The code change made it
possible to bring two of the projects within the budgeted
amount, at tremendous savings to the community, he said. Along
with that, "The fire protection systems that the International
code requires and the state has required are certainly giving
the fire protection, life-safety protection that we've all
sought through the codes," he added. He suggested contacting
the school district regarding the cost savings.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked about the specific areas in which the school
district is saving money.
MR. FOSBURG explained that the Uniform Building Code requires a
high level of construction based on the large areas that used to
be typical of school buildings. However, he explained, most
schools now are being designed as a group of smaller "houses."
Students do not move through the whole facility so much. Labs
and shops are located throughout the buildings rather than
concentrated in one area. Under the old code, labs and shops
had to be very heavily built [to contain a fire] and have many
corridors leading a short distance to outside exits.
International Code makes allowances for built-in sprinkler
systems and smoke alarms, which the state requires. If you have
sprinklers, you can reduce some of the other protections. The
effect has been to move money back into education rather than
into construction.
TAPE 01-18, SIDE A
CHAIR McGUIRE asked if the code change would have any
ramifications for older buildings and if there would be some
time during which they would have to be brought up to code.
Number 0005
MR. FOSBURG said that would depend on a building's use. If the
use does not change, the building is grandfathered and does not
have to meet the new code. If an older building is being
remodeled, there is a provision in the International Code that
allows a design team to evaluate the building and come to
consensus on how to remodel it safely. Before, the code said
that if you remodeled the building to a certain degree, you had
to bring it up to code, he explained. That requirement was
never totally met because it was not structurally possible to do
so, he explained. For residential and multi-family buildings,
there are retroactive provisions related to alarm systems and
early-warning detection systems. Those provisions will be
brought into effect gradually, as most of the major
municipalities already are doing, he said.
Number 0015
GLENN CLARY, who identified himself as the minister of a South
Anchorage church, testified by teleconference. He said the
International Building Code had benefited his church's building
project. When the Children's Ministry Center was originally
designed under the Uniform Building Code, he testified, the bids
came in a little over $10 million. They went back to the
drawing board, went through the IBC code and made the changes
necessary, "and now the ... project is being done at $8.3
million, so it is a cost savings for us in the building that we
are doing right now ...," he said. He explained that they are
doing it under alternate means and methods approved by the
building safety division in Anchorage. He said they saw
benefits in that the IBC code does not require some things that
were previously required, yet does not lower its guard on life
safety issues.
MR. CLARY continued:
And as far as some of the testimony that you are
hearing concerning this thing not being noticed and
testimony taken, I'm a minister and I knew about it,
and I gave them written testimony through the Building
Safety Division on the concerns that we had about the
code when it was being reviewed, and I don't
understand for the life of me why some of these folks
who are right dead center into this project didn't
know about it and couldn't get their testimony in, so
I just don't understand where these folks are coming
from. And evidently they don't see where the cost
savings are on new additions. But we're certainly
experiencing [savings] out here, and I wanted the
Regulation Review Committee to know that.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asserted that the committee was getting off
the subject. "The whole issue here," she emphasized, "is
whether or not the mechanical part of this should be redone by
the fifteenth of September."
Number 0047
RON THOMPSON, representing the Anchorage Building Department,
said he is a licensed mechanical engineer and supervisor of plan
review. He said notice of the proposed code change came through
his office and that they put flyers about it on every counter
where all the contractors in Anchorage come in and could see.
The notice referred to all code adoptions, both the state
process and the one in Anchorage. He said the Anchorage process
started eight months ago and is now in the final stage of
adoption. He said the Building Board had set up committees, and
that there was only one Building Department representative on
each of these committees, so the committees were primarily made
up of engineers and contractors. In going through the codes
votes were taken all the way along. The committees analyzed
what was being changed. "I don't see that there's that big a
change in any aspect of the codes." he said, except that they
are formatted differently. He though that makes the code much
clearer, easier to follow and review. "It makes sense, it's
more practical," he said. He went on to say that in the past
four or five months, the Building Department has been approving
plans under the alternative means and methods provisions of the
uniform code to use the International Code if the applicant
chose to do so. "Basically, the reason they'd entertain it,
most of time, is for cost saving," he said, "and I can tell you,
in the past three to four months, our office ... [has]
entertained hundreds of these requests" to use the new codes.
MR. THOMPSON went on to say that he deals with many of the
people in the room, including those who belong to the Associated
General Contractors, on a daily basis, "and they're all asking
about how to use the new code." He said he already had been
certified in the new code and, "It didn't take that much to get
up to speed on the new code because it's all the same
information, just put in a different ... format."
MR. THOMPSON also wished to comment on testimony concerning the
Uniform Mechanical Code still being in existence. He said that
was true in a sense, but, "The Uniform Mechanical code they are
talking about is being redone and reproduced but IATMO, a
different organization, so it's not the same code that ... [it
has] been in the past. It has gone through two, three-years
cycles [of revision]." He concluded by saying, "But I really
think the technical information in both codes about the same."
Number 0101
PAMELA RONNING, President, Anchorage Chapter, International
Conference of Building Officials, said she also works for the
Building Department. She had a question for Occupational
Licensing. She said that in February 2001, the ICBO had offered
an overview of the International Mechanical Code, and that there
were administrators at that time who wanted to be licensed under
that. She said she was told by the Occupational Licensing
Department that a person could not be certified under a code
until it was adopted. "So," she said "we're kind of in a Catch
22 here." People did not want to take the tests and pay for
them if they couldn't get certified, she said.
Number 0107
MS. REARDON replied that last February, the code change had not
been adopted, and continuing education regulations require that
an applicant have continuing education in the code that is in
effect, which was the Uniform Code. The department had no way
of knowing in February that the state regulation change would go
through, so did not want to approve continuing education that
might turn out not to have been on the appropriate topic.
MS. RONNING said she had received several calls from people who
want to renew their licenses, and asked if she offered a class
next week, would it be accepted?
MS. REARDON asked Ms. Ronning to contact her office. "Now that
we know that the code is, in fact, changing," she said, she
would see how rapidly they could approve the continuing
education courses in the International Code.
MS. RONNING emphasized, "The training is out there; the problem
is getting your office to accept it."
MS. REARDSON said she would call Ms. Ronning to see what could
be done.
Number 0132
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said her big concern was that, "We have
regulations that have been written and are going into effect on
the fifteenth of September, and we have statutory conflict. In
the statute it says that the UMC will be used for mechanical
engineers, and that's exactly the problem that Catherine Reardon
has indicated." She asserted that the new regulations have
overridden statutes, which is a legislative prerogative.
CHAIR McGUIRE said that she agreed with Representative James
that, "That is the problem we have been trying to get at." She
noted that Ms. Reardon is in a situation where they have to
alter their regulations to be able to accept new standards, but,
"Until you've adopted your regs which shouldn't be going into
effect until September 15, not only can she not do it, but there
is some question about whether or not she even has the authority
to under statute."
Number 0139
MR. POWELL said he could respond to part of that, but would like
to defer the rest to the Department of Law. He said there is a
conflict that has existed for a number of years that has never
been resolved, and that is if you read the entire statute, it
says, "Uniform Mechanical Code as published by ICBO and IATMO."
The ICBO no longer participates in that publication, so that in
itself is a conflict ..." He reiterated that the Fire Marshal's
office was following the [legal] advice that the problem would
be taken care of in a "cleanup" change once it was determined
which code would be adopted. At that time, other related
references would be changed to match or to harmonize.
Number 0152
MR. STARK said he thought it would be helpful to have the
statutes clarified. "It is not clear which codes apply," he
said. For example, under the examination of applicants that Ms.
Reardon's office supervises, they talk about "the Uniform
Mechanical Code currently in effect in the state." He said he
thought the courts might well read that broadly enough to
include the International Mechanical Code. So it would be
helpful for the legislature to clear this up, that and the
conflict to which Mr. Powell had referred.
MR. STARK added that he thought it would be helpful for everyone
to understand that once a mechanical contractor or mechanical
administrator takes the test and passes it, that person never
has to take the test again. "So two years from now, people who
are licensed at the end of this month will not be taking that
new test on the International Mechanical Code," he explained.
"They will merely be required to show continuing ... education
on the existing code ...."
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that she agreed with his statement that
there needs to be some clarification, saying that in the
meantime, Ms. Reardon is "in a pickle."
MR. STARK noted that would only be a problem for the next month.
He said if Ms. Reardon wished, he would look at her regulations
to see if there is a way to approve continuing education [on the
International Code] during the next 30 days.
CHAIR McGUIRE thought there was a practical problem with Ms.
Ronning saying people are wanting to begin training in the new
standards. She voiced concern that, "We want to have this
testing in place by October; that's only 30 days to really come
up to speed on an entirely different set of standards.... That's
what we're trying to get at here."
MR. STARK expressed confidence that it would be possible to find
a way to approve the training before September 15.
MS. REARDON said she thought there was some confusion between
testing and the continuing education issue. Those who want to
take courses on the International Code to prepare for the
December licensing exam, which will be given only to those who
are getting their license for the first time, can go ahead and
take any courses they wish, and she has no authority over that,
she explained. By contrast, continuing education is for people
who want to renew their licenses two years from now.
MS. REARDON acknowledged that those people, "at this moment," do
not know whether a course on the International Code will be
accepted two years from now as continuing education, she said.
But they can't begin their continuing education until September
1 anyway, because it has to occur during the license period, so
no one is missing an opportunity.
MS. REARDON noted that the continuing education regulations do
not appear to present a statutory conflict problem because the
continuing education statute simply says that a person can renew
his or her license upon proof of "continued competency." The
Division of Occupational Licensing has defined "continued
competency" to mean that a person has had continuing education
on the Uniform Code. Ms. Reardon said the division would simply
change the regulation to publicly define continued competency as
having had continuing education on whatever code is in effect.
CHAIR McGUIRE said she thought the heart of the issue about
which she, Senator Taylor, and Representative James were
concerned is that, "You have real, live people out there" who
have to figure out how to meet the continuing education
requirements they need to continue their livelihood. Whether or
not there is bureaucratic justification for the change, she
thought there also was concern about the timing, and that the
committee probably will recommend some delay.
MS. REARDON said she wanted to do what is the most logical and
best for the mechanical administrators and contractors. "I'm
thinking that the best thing I can do for them is to try to get
all of my regulations and rules to be in line, to be requiring
the same code as the rest of the state is requiring," she said.
She indicated that it was her sense that the best course of
action for her to take now would be to bring all the licensing
regulations in line with the International code.
MS. REARDON added that she did not think a delay would resolve
the problem she perceives. "I think what I'm hearing is [that]
people wish there were one code in the state," she said. "But it
looks to me like there's no way of achieving that by delaying
the implementation of the International Code because some of the
municipalities have already gone on to the International Code.
So ... at this point in time, there doesn't seem to be any way
to get to a situation in which there is only one code and it's
the Uniform Code; we can't get back to that ...," she observed.
Number 0251
MS. RONNING said she typically does structural review, and since
the 1994 code, the seismic provisions have changed every code
cycle, and they have changed dramatically, and engineers and
plan reviewers have had to learn it within six months. "So all
of this is ... change, and it's difficult," she said. But, she
noted, the change is intended to build safer buildings in the
seismic zone.
Number 0259
JOE GELDHOF, Legal Counsel to the Mechanical Contractors of
Alaska, said he was going to speak to legal points the group
wanted him to make to the committee. Before that, however, he
wished to note that by giving a test under the Uniform Code this
month, the state is basically saying that those are the
standards that should be applied by those in the trades. Then,
in a month, they will be applying the International Code. He
said he thought the change would cause "massive confusion," at
least initially, and that was why the Mechanical Contractors are
saying, "What's the rush?" He said it was necessary to line up
the testing regime with the code that is going to be adopted,
and that all the mechanical contractors wanted from the
committee was to say, "Let's let the legislature deal with this
as they should and as they must." He charged that there had
been "a rush to judgment" by "a fairly small cell of bureaucrats
in the inspection agencies." He said, "You've got two factions
here, and I represent one of the factions.... and it [the
conflict] needs to be resolved by the legislature, not by a few
bureaucrats."
MR. GELDHOF said Mr. Rutland had directed him to communicate to
the committee what is going to happen if the state goes ahead
with the adoption of the regulations without conforming the
licensing statutes so that testing is done according to the
legislature. There are three basic legal objections that the
mechanical contractors intend make. One is that there was not
deliberate due process. The second is that there is a statutory
conflict. The legislature adopted a statute containing two
provisions referring to the Uniform Mechanical Code, and only
the legislature can change that, he argued. The third, he
asserted, is that a change cannot be made without a fiscal note.
"All of this can be avoided and should be avoided by holding off
on this and letting the legislature harmonize the statute as
they should," he said. He added that all the mechanical
contractors want is to make their case [regarding a code change]
before the legislature.
Number 9354
JAMES GRAY, Plan Review Engineer, Building Safety Division,
Anchorage, came forward to testify. He said he is certified by
the State of Alaska as registered professional engineer, and is
a certified plans examiner under both the International and the
Uniform codes. He said he had been tasked with pulling together
all of the groups concerned with code adoption in the
Municipality of Anchorage. There were 12 committees and more
than 100 different people involved. "I am one of the
bureaucrats that the IATMO attorney is referring to, and I have
a database of over 1,500 people that I Faxed out many
notifications on multiple different occasions about the 2000
code adoption," he said, "so for folks to say the word didn't
get out there, it is simply not true." He noted that a web site
was created specifically for code adoption, and on it were all
of the proposed amendments, all of the parts of the code, and
arguments for and against the Uniform Mechanical Code and the
International Mechanical Code. "So we have simply gotten the
word out there," he stated.
MR. GRAY went on to say that every three years, the codes are
re-adopted, and that there is always change. "And, guys, don't
let anybody fool you, this is no different," he emphasized.
"This argument is about who sells code books. The changes occur
every three years, and this three years is no different. Don't
let anybody try to convince you of anything else." The
committees that went through all the minutae and the details
included plumbers, mechanical contractors, engineers,
architects, and designers. One building official -- one
bureaucrat -- was on each committee, and "we argued that stuff
out ad infinitum in multiple meetings since last October," he
said. He volunteered to share the committee meeting notes and
the signatures of all those who attended meetings.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was going to have to sign off because of
another appointment.
Number 0390
BUD KNOX, Owner, Knox Plumbing and Heating, testified by
teleconference. He said he has been sick and "out of the loop"
for about two years, but recently has started taking classes to
renew his mechanical administrator's license. He said he had
not been notified of anything, and that about 40 other plumbers
who were in a class with him last week had not been notified
either. He said there is nothing new to learn, and it is the
mechanical administrators who really make the laws because they
are the ones who tell the bureaucrats the best way to do it. He
said it has really upset him because he did not like the idea of
two or three people deciding for everyone else who is to do
what. "I do like the change, but let's let it go through the
legislative process...." he said, noting that legislators are
elected and bureaucrats are not.
Number 0422
BRIAN BORJESSON, Consulting Engineer, testified by
teleconference. He said he is a licensed engineer and a
certified forensic engineer, holds a mechanical administrator's
license, is a certified ICBO inspector and a professional
estimator, and has been in construction for more than 45 years
in Alaska. He said he did not dispute that the "city folks" had
sent out notifications and held meetings as they had testified.
However, he said, that doesn't apply to the majority of people
outside of the cities who are under the fire marshal's aegis,
and "they are the ones that are having the problem with this
whole process." He observed that it hadn't been brought up that
the fire marshal's office had only adopted portions of the
building code as well as the mechanical and other codes, "and
this causes an enormous problem for engineers designing outside
of the cities because we essentially do not have a code
that we can design to, where we can design the structural and
other systems, because that part of the code is not adopted."
MR. BORJESSON explained that codes primarily serve as guides to
the people that use them, setting a minimum standard to be
followed. He said:
There are two kinds of codes, prescriptive codes and
performance codes. Prescriptive codes are the ones
that tell you what parts you can use and how you can
use them, and a performance code simply says, 'Do the
job.' That's what has happened in the mechanical code
now, and that's what they're alluding to as cost
savings. What I question is what compromise have we
had in the quality of the structures as well as the
life-safety issues by allowing a performance-based
code to come into effect without testing it and
without setting certain standards that must be
followed?
MR. BORJESSON said sprinkler systems are not new, and the idea
that a sprinkler system reduces the cost of a structure is a red
herring. That was true also under the IBC; when you installed a
sprinkler system, ... "a whole lot of things that would
ordinarily be required can be laid to the side, and it frees up
the designer to really start doing an economical designing job,"
he said.
MR. BORJESSON voiced his opinion that the fire marshal's office
is not qualified to design or inspect mechanical systems. He
said another problem has been lack of education for
professionals -- such as architects, engineers, mechanical
administrators, and ICBO inspectors -- in the use of the new
code. "I didn't hear about this until last spring. I had a
chance to write a single letter to the City of Fairbanks, not to
the fire marshal's office," he said. "I wasn't even aware that
they were working on it, I was aware the City of Fairbanks was
planning to adopt the code and I was asked to write something
regarding that, which I did, and so I did have some input here
locally. It was totally ignored, but at least I had the input."
MR. BORJESSON said the problem with any new code, and especially
when bringing three codes together, is that there is no way that
groups of people can flush out all of the problems in trying to
coordinate these codes. "And guess who's going to flush 'em
out?" he asked. "We're the ones, the people ... down in the
trenches, the guys working on the jobs, the mechanical
administrators that are really in charge of the process are the
ones who are going to run into these problems and are going to
have to resolve them in the field, not in an office somewhere by
somebody throwing darts at a calendar."
MR. BORJESSON concluded with a list of recommendations: (1)
Delay for one year the current adoption or use of these codes,
(2) Set up training sessions so those who are going to use the
codes will have a change to be fully trained in them, (3) Give
the users (mechanical contractors and others) time to go through
the codes and get rid of the problems that are in them, and (4)
Have no new changes in any codes for at least six years to be
able "to work through these codes and really get them
functional" for the state of Alaska.
Number 0542
BILL SAGER, Executive Director, Mechanical Contractors if
Fairbanks, testified by teleconference. He said he is a
licensed contractor and mechanical administrator, and had just
completed continuing education to renew his license for the next
two years. He said he did that under the Uniform Mechanical
Code, and now the state is proposing to adopt a code that is
different from the one on which his continuing education was
based. "This doesn't make sense," he said. "Both California
and Washington have decided to take a 'wait and see' position
until the year 2003, when all the new codes are out, and then
decide which way to go. I think that the State of Alaska ought
to consider doing the same thing. I don't see any reason for
this rush to a new code."
Number 0564
WILLIAM McNEAL, Consulting Engineer, came forward to testify.
He said he is employed by Coffman Engineers in Anchorage and has
worked with the Uniform Code series for about 28 years in five
states, and has been doing work in Alaska since 1982. He served
on both the state's code review committee for the International
Mechanical Code and the comparable committee for the
Municipality of Anchorage. He said he personally is in favor of
adopting the International Code series, and thinks that it is a
well-coordinated package overall and that it is very
comprehensive. "One particularly positive aspect is the very
good cross-referencing between the various different sections of
that code," he said. He concluded by saying, "I feel that the
vast majority of the proposed International Mechanical Code is
very, very similar to the Uniform Mechanical Code and for these
reasons I am very much in favor of adopting the International
Mechanical Code."
Number 0594
JOHN McCOOL, Architect, said he had been practicing in Alaska
for about 30 years and had previously served on several state
code amendment review committees. He also had been on the
Anchorage Building Board and participated in at least three
reviews with the MOA on updating local amendments.
MR. McCOOL said two points were being missed. "There is no
longer a Uniform Building Code to refer to; it's extinct, it's
gone," he said. He noted that it had been a seven-year process,
starting in 1994, during which the Uniform Code group (ICBO) had
been meeting with the other two other national code bodies and
melding into one coordinated group of codes. "Unless you've got
them together, there definitely will be more cost in
coordination and conflicts, and definitely more cost to the
different state agencies administering this because if they're
not coordinated, somebody's got to unscramble this," he said.
He encouraged all those concerned to become active in the code
groups. "If we get a single family, the International family in
this case is the only one that's available to us, and it's gone
through a good process in the past seven years to try to make
this happen, and it's not perfect, but they have a democratic
process that each year they get together and do amendments, as
do most of the local ...[jurisdictions].
TAPE 01-18, SIDE B
MR. McCOOL continued his testimony, saying that continuing
education is a "must." He urged those concerned to get involved
in the process rather than just reacting after the fact. He
concluded by saying he thought that the state was awakening to
the fact that we need a single model code group. "We cannot use
a piece of an IBC and a piece of a UBC...," he said.
Number 0010
MICHAEL MASON, Chief of Building Inspections, Municipality of
Anchorage, stated that he currently was the acting building
official and was testifying in that capacity as well. He noted
that the process to develop the International Code had been a
long and involved one involving a great number of people. As
Mr. Gray had testified, many people, including contractors, were
invited to participate.
MR. MASON went on to say that as a past president of the Alaska
Central Chapter of the International Conference of Building
Officials (ICBO), he knew that organization had put on numerous
courses and classes for training a wide gamut of people,
including contractors and administrators. When new codes come
into play, the group "actually provides comparative analysis
between the various codes, so there is a process for the new
codes to be integrated into the system and the training to be
integrated into the individuals' education," he said.
MR. MASON concurred with Mr. McCool, from the perspective of
being an engineer licensed in several states, that this
International Code process is really very necessary. He said
the ICBO and the Municipality [of Anchorage] are very interested
in providing education to the mechanical contractors and other
groups so that they are abreast of the new code aspects. He
concluded by voicing his support for the new code and,
especially, for bringing the International Mechanical Code into
play.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Mason to send her a copy of the
side-by-side code comparison.
MR. MASON said he would arrange to get that information to the
legislators.
CHAIR McGUIRE said two more people were going to be allowed to
testify, and she apologized to those who signed the lists later
and were not going to get an opportunity to testify. She
invited those people to meet with her, to Representative James,
or to other committee members, or to submit written testimony.
She explained that another meeting was scheduled in the room, so
the meeting could not be continued.
SENATOR LINCOLN added that all of the committee members have
offices that are open, and she invited people to call.
CHAIR McGUIRE offered a list of committee members and their
contacts.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he was going to have to leave.
Number 0080
BILL BRUU of Wasilla testified by teleconference. He recalled
that Senator Taylor had alluded early in the testimony to a
problem that had occurred with the National Electrical Code and
certification of electricians in Alaska. "I would suggest to
the committee that the Department of Labor has not moved very
far from that particular position," he said. "The IATMO, the
International Associated Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, are
strongly supported by the plumbing unions and also by the copper
industry. There have been many, many technological advances in
the plumbing field and in the mechanical field that have just
been stymied by IATMO and been refused to be put into the code
books as usable materials."
MR. BRUU questioned the motives of those who were opposing the
code change. "Every three years, the codes change," he said,
"and Catherine Reardon and the people in Occupational Licensing
periodically review that and change the tests as required to
stay current with the codes. This is a "tempest in a teapot"
situation here that we're talking about."
MR. BRUU added that he thought the legislature should consider
putting all of the code applications under one agency.
KIM ROSS, Staff to Senator Randy Phillips, Alaska State
Legislature, testified by teleconference. She said she wished
to offer testimony on behalf of some of Senator Phillips' Eagle
River and Anchorage constituents. About ten days before the
second 30-day public comment period ended in June, Senator
Phillips' office had received a call from a mechanical
contractor in Eagle River saying, "These codes are changing and
we didn't know about it, and can you help?" she said. Senator
Phillips coordinated two local meetings, which were attended by
10-12 mechanical contractors and mechanical administrators. All
12 of those contractors said they had not received notification
of the proposed changes, she said.
MS. ROSS said major points they had made were that the proposed
code is not prescriptive, but performance-based; it makes
references to multiple other codes, and the contractors will
have to retrain their employees and work through a huge learning
curve where quality of work and public safety could be
compromised. "This performance-based program may necessitate
design and engineering drawings for common residential work" she
said, "and that's ... a point that I haven't heard spoken here
yet."
CHAIR McGUIRE said it was her intent to draft a letter for
committee members' review that will go on to the Department of
Public Safety with recommendations based on this committee
meeting.
SENATOR LINCOLN expressed hope that the committee would not
"jump the gun," but carefully analyze this [proposed code
change].
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Joint
Committee on Administrative Regulation Review meeting was
adjourned at an unspecified time.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|