SB 38-ADOPTION OF SAFETY CODES    CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER asked for a motion to adopt the committee substitute (CS). SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR made a motion to adopt Banister 3/17/03 \S version CSSB 38 as the working document. SENATOR GEORGIANNA LINCOLN asked if the sponsor would speak to the CS. CHAIR WAGONER confirmed the sponsor would speak to the CS and that there was a question and answer draft in the packets as well. SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT explained the \S version CS addresses several issues discussed at the previous hearing. For a transition term, the delay period changed from three years to two years. This delay would allow mechanical administrators time to receive proper training when there is a switch from one code to another. Language on page 3, line 29 clarifies that the delay period applies only when there is a switch to a complete new code. There would be no delay for normal code updates. The larger issue of whether all the codes should be placed under the oversight of one agency is not addressed. He came to no conclusion himself and was aware that the Administration was working with the agencies to come to a resolution. He remarked the committee could either wait for a decision regarding jurisdiction or they could move the CS out of committee and allow the Labor and Commerce Committee to continue work on the issue. There were no questions asked of Senator Therriault. SENATOR WAGONER announced there were several individuals waiting to give testimony and advised all previous testimony was on record. MR. COLIN MAYNARD, Alaska Professional Design Council representative, testified via teleconference. Although he hadn't seen the second CS, he understands it is similar to the first so the council would oppose adoption. They don't believe the mechanical code belongs in the Department of Labor; rather it belongs with the building and fire codes. The name change from Uniform Code to International Code by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) has caused much confusion, but they are the same people who have been writing the mechanical code in Alaska for the last forty years and the council sees no reason for a change. The question regarding whether the Department of Public Safety has the legal authority to adopt a mechanical code is curious because they have been doing so for as long as he can remember. The council agrees with the task force approach to address all the codes at one time rather than in this piece meal process. MR. STEVE SHOWS, a construction inspector, testified he is certified by all uniform and international code writing agencies. He made the following points: · Both codes have a bias and they are slightly different, but both are good codes · He agreed with removing the discriminatory language that would not allow the International Codes to be adopted in Alaska. · International Codes have a public safety, health and welfare bias that is very evident · National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) favors industry and trade organizations Because Alaska has a fragmented approach to construction regulation, he advised looking to municipalities where codes are seamless, integrated, work together and people communicate so the building construction industry and the health and safety of residents is at the forefront. Keep in mind; the purpose is fair and impartial regulation and public safety. For over 15 years, organizations convinced the Legislature to keep the 1979 plumbing code as the State document regulating that activity and trade. It cost the State 10s of millions of dollars a year to administer the outdated code that financially benefited those who sold and installed expensive materials. There was no further testimony. SENATOR LINCOLN asked what position Fairbanks held regarding SB 38. MR. ZACH WARWICK, staff to Senator Therriault, advised the building officials continue to oppose the legislation. SENATOR LINCOLN asked for information regarding their main opposition. MR. WARWICK explained they opposed the time lag and because they have gone through the process to update their codes to the International Codes, SB 38 would require the municipality to do additional work. SENATOR LINCOLN asked how much time that additional work would require. MR. WARWICK said it depends on which code the Department of Labor adopts. The links between the International Fire Code and International Building Code would need to be updated to synchronize with the Uniform Code if that code is adopted, but no additional work would be required if the International Code is adopted. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the two year delay wouldn't allow for such updates. MR. WARWICK explained there would be no delay when the Department of Labor initially adopts a particular code. If there were code switches in the future, there would be a delay. SENATOR LINCOLN remarked NANA/Colt Engineering was also opposed to bill because of the shift from one department to another. She asked if the sponsor had spoken to the firm to address their concerns. MR. WARWICK reported he spoke with Mr. Moore several times. He added there are opposing views on this issue and probably the only agreement is that the codes could possibly be in one place. SENATOR LINCOLN referred to the sponsor's statement that jurisdiction hasn't been resolved. She asked the Chair's intention. CHAIR WAGONER replied he would like the Labor and Commerce Committee to work on that aspect of the legislation. Since the last hearing he has given some thought to putting the codes together under the jurisdiction of the Division of Occupational Licensing. MR. WARWICK said it is his understanding that division doesn't have the technical knowledge; they deal primarily with training and licensing of the trades. They can authorize a class under a code, but they don't deal with the exact codes. Administration officials have advised him they are arranging for people from the Fire Marshall's office, the Department of Labor and the Governor's office to meet and discuss where the codes should reside. It's difficult to find a third neutral department where the codes could be placed. SENATOR KIM ELTON asked for clarification that in addition to the building officials the Fairbanks Mayor and City Council continues to oppose the bill. MR. WARWICK thought the Fairbanks officials that wrote letters in opposition to the legislation were speaking on behalf of the building officials. SENATOR ELTON noted the committee didn't know what the Administration's position was and there were still substantive questions and issues associated with the legislation. The Alaska Professional Design Council raised a number of questions and he was uncomfortable moving the bill prior to receiving feedback from the Administration and addressing those issues. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed to the extent that the critical aspect of the legislation is jurisdiction. The critical policy call for the Legislature is to decide where the codes should be housed. Continuity and one stop shopping that Mr. Shows spoke of are critical to the building trades and design professionals. He too expressed a desire to address the jurisdictional question prior to moving the bill. The committee already spent considerable time on the bill and moving it without addressing jurisdiction would waste that time and effort. CHAIR WAGONER announced he would hold SB 38 in committee until they heard from the Governor's Office, the Department of Labor and the Fire Marshall's Office. SENATOR TAYLOR asked the Chair to call for objection or a vote then declare whether the CS was adopted or not. CHAIR WAGONER apologized and asked whether there was objection to adopting Banister 3/17/03 \S version CSSB 38. There was no objection and it was so ordered. The bill was held in committee.