HOUSE BILL NO. 400 "An Act relating to the collection of fees by the Department of Public Safety for fire and explosion prevention and safety services." 4:20:17 PM Co-Chair Foster informed that if it was the will of the members, it would pass HB 200 out of committee. REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, SPONSOR, introduced himself. CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS- TOMKINS, introduced herself. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins indicated the bill was one page and was simple. There had been a statutory change recommendation in a House Finance Subcommittee under the auspices of the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee. The recommendation would try to help the Department of Public Safety streamline its operations, operate more efficiently, and cut down on Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) spending. The UGF would be replaced with user fees or Designated General Funds (DGF). The state Fire Marshal's Office had identified the opportunity, and the subcommittee unanimously agreed the idea merited exploration. The bill had passed the House State Affairs committee in four hearings, after consideration of multiple amendments that had not passed. Representative Wilson read from page 2 of the fiscal note: Fire Inspections - $50 per hour with a one-hour minimum. DFLS anticipates the average inspection to take two hours. The goal is to accomplish 1,500 inspections per year; but currently 500 is more likely. Considering 500 two-hour inspections per year at $50 per hour, the estimated annual revenue would be $50,000. Representative Wilson asked what happened to the additional 1,000 properties that would not receive an inspection. She wondered if properties on the road system were more likely to receive inspections. Representative Kreiss-Tompkins deferred to the state fire marshal. 4:23:56 PM DAVID TYLER, DIVISION OF FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), explained that the $50 per hour charge was arrived at after considering potential outcomes. He discussed inspection rates and size of properties. He acknowledged that properties on the road system received inspection more frequently as there was easier access. Increased funding would allow the inspectors to reach more communities so that inspections would be more equitable across the state. Representative Wilson asked about properties not on the road system that needed inspection. Mr. Tyler responded that the properties not being inspected and would not be charged a fee. Representative Wilson asked him to tell her about the places that were not currently being inspected and would be subject to a $50 per hour fee. Mr. Tyler replied that hotels, lodges, and large assembly areas such as auction houses and schools would be in the category. 4:26:34 PM Representative Wilson supported the bill but was concerned with justifying the charging of fees. She wondered how the state would keep up with the demand. She thought it would be difficult to justifying the fees. Mr. Tyler indicated that by charging the fees the department would be better able to reach the outlying areas to do additional inspections and hit the goal of 1,500 structures per year. Representative Wilson asked if $50 per hour would provide enough money for the travel to outlying areas. Representative Wilson did not want to charge more to the communities in rural area. She discussed fees. She asked if the bill was governed by square footage rather than by hour. Mr. Tyler thought a flat rate for square footage was a much fairer way of billing for the service. 4:29:30 PM Representative Thompson noted that the City of Fairbanks had its own building department, codes, and fire department which completed inspections. He noted that the fire department certified building plans. He suggested that there were private companies in Fairbanks that could inspect fire extinguishers and fire extinguisher systems. He asked if the state was adding another layer of charges to cities that had existing codes and departments. Mr. Tyler explained that the City of Fairbanks was a deferred jurisdiction and did all the work itself; as did the cities of Juneau and Anchorage. It was his goal for any community (that was able) to do the inspection work itself. He thought a local community could do a much better job of accomplishing the work. He relayed that the private companies that did the inspections mentioned by Representative Thompson were certified by the division. Representative Kawasaki asked about the ability to waive fees for non-profits such as churches. Mr. Tyler believed bill was worded so that it was possible to waive the fees. Representative Kawasaki stated that the bill would allow the director the ability to waive the fees. 4:33:16 PM Representative Guttenberg did not believe the state should simply do inspections because it could charge for it. He asked if there was a statistical analysis on prevention. He mentioned non-conforming properties in rural Alaska. Mr. Tyler reported that from 2001 to 2007 there had been 76 uncontained fires in public schools with a total monetary loss in excess of $50 million. Fires in Hooper Bay and Talkeetna schools had resulted in total losses. In FY 08, the division had requested and received a $105,000 increment to get the fire inspections current. From 2008 to 2012, there was 47 uncontained fires in school with a total monetary loss of $1.4 million. Since 2012 there had been staffing issues and a reduction in travel funding. Since 2013 the total fire loss had added up to $7 million. He emphasized that the inspections made a difference through education and elimination of hazards. Representative Tilton asked about the permit period for fire systems technician permits and fire extinguisher technician permits. She wondered if the building inspections only required in an initial inspection or a longer term. Mr. Tyler responded that the division's goal was to do inspections every 2 years. He elaborated that the industry standard was to do inspections every year but did not think it was realistic for Alaska. Representative Tilton asked how many inspections were done in the previous year. Mr. Tyler reported that the division had done about 213 inspections the previous year, but his department had been short by 2 deputy fire marshals. He expected to complete close to 500 inspections in FY 18. Representative Tilton wondered how many buildings there were that needed inspection, not including new construction. Mr. Tyler estimated there was a little more than 3,000 structures the division was statutorily responsible to inspect. Representative Wilson asked if the regulations were new. Mr. Tyler replied that the statute that required the inspections was existing. 4:37:42 PM Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony. Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony. Vice-Chair Gara read FN 1 from the Department of Public Safety, OMB Component number 3051. The note was indeterminate. It was estimated that the bill would raise about $84,000 of DGF through fees. Representative Wilson indicated that for her it was not about the fees; but rather the amount of money spent after inspections were not done, resulting in fires and damage to schools. She hoped for further inspections to prevent fires. Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report HB 400 out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HB 400 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one previously published indeterminate fiscal note: FN1(DPS).