HB 202-RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS    3:35:10 PM CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 202, "An Act relating to state and municipal building code requirements for fire sprinkler systems in certain residential buildings." [Before the committee was CSHB 202(CRA).] REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, explained that HB 202 would provide a longer public process before a municipality could require mandatory fire sprinklers for one- or two-family homes. He related that HB 202 is in response to a national movement to require fire sprinkler systems in one- and two-family dwellings. This bill would require a more robust public process be followed before sprinklers could be mandated in new home construction. The CSHB 202(CRA) requires that before a municipality could mandate sprinkler systems in all new construction of residential buildings with one- or two-family units it must first publish a summary of the ordinance at least 30 days prior to the first public hearing to notice the time and place of each scheduled public hearing. Additionally, the municipality must hold three public hearings within a 60 to 180 day period. This bill recognizes there may be instances in Alaska in which mandating fire sprinklers for one- and two- family dwellings is considered necessary. In those instances, HB 202 would not prohibit the mandate of the fire sprinklers. This bill would continue to allow elected officials in municipalities and cities explore a mandate on fire sprinklers. 3:36:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related her understanding that this bill would only apply to one- and two-family dwellings. She asked whether larger dwellings are covered by other regulations. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered that the State Fire Marshal's regulations cover larger dwellings. In further response to Representative T. Wilson, he responded that the decision on fire sprinkler requirements is made by the State Fire Marshal depending on a permit application submitted by the builder. 3:37:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed concern that the state would mandate what is required in our own home. He understood the need for enhanced safety, but due to the location of his home, it is not likely that the electrical pump would work in the case of a fire. He asked whether fire sprinklers would need to be installed when a homeowner remodels his/her kitchen. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that the decision on sprinkling requirements for homes is a local decision. The bill would require the necessity for a longer public process. Currently, a municipality could hold hearings and have an accelerated process to mandate sprinkler systems in residential homes. This bill would extend the process to ensure that the public process is not less than 60 days and no longer than 180 days. In working with all the stakeholders, this timeframe was found to be reasonable timeframe and represents a compromise from the language in the original bill. He stated that the stakeholders were not opposed to involving the public in the decision-making process. 3:40:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to whether municipalities presently have the authority to require sprinkler systems. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON responded that it depends on which national or international code is adopted. Typically, the fire chief would work with the respective assembly or governmental authority, such as a borough. Thus, a municipality may have the authority and the process may already be in place. This bill would simply ensure that the public process is extended. 3:41:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related that large areas of Alaska fall in unorganized boroughs. He asked whether this bill would affect them. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered yes. For example, the City of Bethel is a second class city and HB 202 would allow the opportunity for a community process if Bethel chose to do so. He said this is not likely to happen in his community since the fire chief is satisfied with the Fire Marshal's authority to only mandate fire sprinklers in four-plex apartments and larger. In other areas, the local government would work with the fire chief and could require mandated fire sprinklers. 3:42:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how the public comment period in the bill would apply to people who want to build homes in a region like Lime Village or in the Yukon River area. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered that the "assembly" for communities in the unorganized borough would the legislature. 3:43:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN restated his question. He asked how the bill would affect people who reside in unorganized boroughs. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related that the matter would be the legislature's responsibility. 3:44:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, in response to Representative T. Wilson, agreed HB 202 pertains to the public comment period. In further response, he related that this state is filled with independent people. He explained the trend in the Lower 48 to require residential sprinklers in single family homes. In Alaska, many people have "pushed back" against mandated sprinklers in single family homes. Thus, the homebuilders and fire chiefs have crafted a compromise to allow a local decision-making process, which provides a 60-180 day public comment period. 3:46:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related that her community of North Pole does not have building codes. She assumed that this bill would apply only to cities. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON agreed. He explained that many people desire a longer process. Thus, HB 202 would give the matter a higher presence and visibility in the community. It would allow people who would be affected by mandated sprinkler systems to become informed and have an opportunity to participate in the process. 3:47:43 PM KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League (AML) introduced herself. 3:48:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how HB 202 would affect people in unorganized areas such as in Squentna, near the Yentna River, since this bill would impose a state requirement. MS. WASSERMAN related that the state does not mandate fire sprinklers be installed in one- and two-family residences so Squentna would not have a government entity mandating installation of fire sprinklers. The bill would only mandate the need for an extra hearing to be held when a municipality decided to adopt a building code that requires fire sprinklers. This bill would not affect most homeowners, she stated. She did not believe that most municipalities will require mandated sprinklers be installed throughout a new home during construction. She explained some people expressed concern that a municipality might require new homes to be equipped with fire sprinklers throughout the home. The municipalities have expressed an interest in having local control over the decisions on building codes in their respective jurisdictions. 3:51:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to a letter in members' packets from the Alaska State Home Building Association (ASHBA) [dated March 25, 2010] that read, "Mandating fire sprinklers systems in the construction of all new 1 and 2 family dwellings could raise significant issues that most Alaskans are currently unaware of." He asked whether any part of this bill would mandate a state requirement for fire sprinklers. MS. WASSERMAN answered no. In further response to Representative Neuman, she explained that nothing in HB 202 would mandate sprinkler systems for one- and two-family residences. 3:52:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether HB 202 is necessary. MS. WASSERMAN related that the stakeholders agreed to the bill. The AML's contention is that the building codes should be under municipal authority and the state should not mandate which code a municipality should adopt. The AML is opposed to mandates, but is willing to allow "local control" over building codes. She related this issue has been discussed for two years and "we thought it was time to put it to rest." 3:53:27 PM PAUL MICHELSOHN, Alaska State Home Building Association (ASHBA), stated that he serves on several organizations, including the national code review for the National Association of Home Builders, which is the codes and standards committee. He has participated in three code cycles for the International Code Council (ICC), the organization that writes the codes. He related that he has also participated in six code reviews for the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA). He stated that HB 202 is a compromise on 18-24 months of work. He has also worked on this issue nationally for over ten years. The Alaska State Home Building Association (ASHBA) believes that HB 202 provides the key to inform the public and educate them on the cost and problem with the installation of fire sprinklers systems for one- and two-family dwellings, prior to any mandate. The Municipality of Anchorage, the Alaska State Homebuilding Association, the Alaska Association of Realtors, Inc., and various local home builders' associations have worked on this issue. This bill remains the number one priority of the Alaska State Home Building Association (ASHBA). He strongly supported the committee pass the bill out of committee without any amendments and to bring the bill before the body for a vote. CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 202. 3:56:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to the sponsor statement. He asked whether a municipality that follows the rules and holds public meetings could mandate fire sprinkler systems on one- and two-family residences, even if the public is opposed to them. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON stated that Representative Neuman has identified the reason for the bill. There is the "fear" that a government could overrun its neighbors and mandate something the community does not want. He thinks this bill would help his constituents since it requires a six-month opportunity to hold discussions in the community. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his belief that a municipality could mandate sprinklers by following the hearing rules outlined in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related the advantage of having decisions made by local assemblies and to provide an opportunity for redress. He further related that he has observed politicians being "thrown out" for decisions made contrary to the public's wishes. CHAIR OLSON related that he also has observed his community "swap out" half the city council over a land-use issue. He said he thinks the political process works and leadership tends to follow the public input. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON agreed. Prior committee testimony expressed concern that an aggressive bureaucracy for an assembly could push through "anything." Everyone who testified believed that a thorough process would educate people on the issue under consideration. The stakeholder thought it was important to place the requirement for an extended public process in state statute. He restated that the testimony supported the Alaska legislature mandate a longer process on this important issue which will affect homeowners. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his belief that some municipalities previously have made decisions prior to any assembly action. He related he has personally observed adversarial actions in local government in his district, noting that the planning committee has the authority to adopt regulations. He expressed concern that the planning committee could impose these restrictions. He asked if HB 202 passed, if it would allow communities that do not currently have a requirement for sprinkler systems to adopt code changes to mandate sprinkler systems for one- and two-family homes. He expressed concern that this bill will set up a process for imposition of sprinkler systems. 4:04:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered that a municipality could currently adopt the code with very little input to mandate sprinkler systems. This bill would require municipality who has adopted a code requiring mandated sprinkler systems to go through yet another public process and hold additional hearings. He said, "You answered your own question. This does help my constituents, and your friends and neighbors, and your constituents." REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN does not understand why it is necessary to pass the bill. He asked, "If it could already do this why are we even here talking about this today." 4:05:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether municipalities could require sprinkler systems without passage of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered yes. He explained that currently a bureaucrat could recommend an assembly adopt a mandate for sprinkler systems and an assembly may adopt the requirement for mandated sprinkler systems through a relatively short process. This bill would require a longer process to educate people on the pros and cons of a mandated fire sprinkler system. He encouraged an affirmative vote since it extends the public process to be certain people are informed. 4:07:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related that currently a municipality could impose sprinkler systems on one- or two-family homes. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related his understanding that this bill would add another layer of protection for a community since it requires the governmental body to hold a series of meetings to inform the public. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered yes. 4:08:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to page 1, line 5, to paragraph "(62) AS 29.35.144 (sprinkler fire protection systems)." She asked for clarification to be certain the statute citation for the paragraph is the correct citation. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that any conforming amendments are fine. 4:09:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related he has a "libertarian streak." He said he does not think we need to pass a new law. He hoped that a municipality would hold the additional meeting without passage of this bill. He stated that he did not vote for the mandatory seatbelt law, yet he uses his seatbelts. He considered putting sprinklers in his home, but he does not trust government and does not see the necessity for the bill. 4:10:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT moved to report CSHB 202(CRA) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 202(CRA) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. 4:11:04 PM The committee took an at-ease from 4:11 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.