SENATE BILL NO. 8 "An Act relating to the number of toilets in women's restrooms in certain facilities." CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 8(STA) "An Act relating to the minimum plumbing fixtures required for females and males in the state plumbing code; and providing for an effective date." Senator Donley explained SB 8 would amend the existing plumbing code in AS 18.60.705 to more closely resemble the national standard and increase the minimum number of women's and men's bathroom facilities in assembly places. He noted that SB 8 would allow women to attend large public events in buildings constructed after January, 2000 without enduring the line they have inevitable had to face, thus unfairly impacting their enjoyment of the event they are attending. Through the bill, the ratio of women's to men's facilities would be increased, bringing fairness to the situation. The current statute adopts the entire most recent Uniform Building Code, except table A-29-A, which is an older version of the code that provides fewer plumbing facilities for women. The bill would also amend current statute and specifically address the number of facilities provided for men and women in "assembly places". The current table in statute does provide a slightly elevated number of facilities for women in comparison to those provided for men, but the ratio does not meet the demand. He stated that SB 8 would amend table A-29-A currently in statute relating to females and include Table 4.1 from the 1997 Uniform Building Code for men. Senator Donley concluded that SB 8 would correct a situation that has plagued women since indoor events have been held in the State of Alaska. He believed that it would be a step in the right direction and would give women the opportunity to enjoy the event they are attending rather than spending the majority of their time in line for the bathroom. Senator Green asked if Senator Donley would consider using the numbers in the Uniform Building Code. Senator Donley agreed that would be a better than the current number of the facilities, however, pointed out that the need is even greater. He stated that within current code, at an event with over four hundred participants, the difference would be that in current Uniform Building Code would provide for twelve facilities, whereas, SB 8 would provide for sixteen. Co-Chair Torgerson questioned Page 1, Line 6. "unless the department adopts by regulation a later edition of the following publication". He suggested that a "later edition" might not include the intention of the bill. Senator Donley responded that he had been working with the Department on the legislation and never considered that the Department would go "backwards". The Department does support increasing the number of the facilities. The way the law is written provides that type of flexibility to either increase or decrease the number of facilities. He reiterated that the Department is committed to increasing the facilities. Senator Green recommended that the Department could adopt the Uniform Code or make the changes through statute. Senator Donley understood that the State had adopted only a portion of the code. Co-Chair Torgerson asked for clarification of the exempted assembly areas. Senator Donley said the older code required fewer facilities. A drafting was necessary to place the older system within the new law and still maintain the simplicity desired by the public. DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor, explained that the 1997 plumbing code Table 4.1 was included. [Copy on File]. Last year, the Labor and Commerce Committee changed the language by deleting table 4.1. and inserting the A-29 Code. That table is less complex and easier to use. Any future codes being adopted by regulation would still remain in statute and that the Legislature would have authority to change it. Senator Leman asked about new construction, expansion and remodels. He inquired if the new code would apply to increasing all facilities. Mr. Perkins responded, providing two scenarios. If color schemes needed to be changed, there would be no increase in the number of restroom facilities. However, if there were a change in the size of the assembly area, there would then have to be an increased number of facilities. He advised that at present, the law addresses only the new facilities. Senator Wilken commented that the proposed bill was different from the one presented in the State Affairs Committee. He requested to receive testimony from an architect regarding the increased costs. Senator Donley commented that he had not seen any studies regarding that concern. From personal experience and feed back, he sensed that the addition of forty toilets to a new arena would not "make or break" costs. Senator Wilken pointed out that the new law would add one hundred twenty-eight (128) toilets to a ten thousand-seat facility. Senator Donley agreed that there were ways in which the matter could be resolved and that those options could be discussed later. Senator Leman commented, checking a quick calculation, it would cost approximately $500 thousand dollars more for the additional toilets. Senator Green explained that she did not understand the need to establish a higher standard than the one established in the current building codes. She noted that she would not support the bill as written. She proposed an amendment which would adopt the Uniform Building Codes. Senator Green MOVED to adopt Table 4.1 of the Uniform Building Code as a guideline for the number of water closets necessary per the number by occupancy. Senator Donley OBJECTED. Senator Donley noted that the advantage would be lost with this simpler approach and that the motion would significantly reduce the number of facilities provided. He suggested a "better" alternative would be to modify Page 2, Line 16, to lower the standard. He believed that action could modify having two additional water closets for each 125 females. Senator Green pointed out that for every four hundred women, presently, there are built eight water closets. The bill would increase that number by six. She questioned why Alaska was more unique than the rest of the states and needed to have more facilities. Senator Leman explained that he did not understand the proposed amendment. He agreed that table 4.1 was not necessary and that A-29A should be kept in place. Senator Green clarified that the intent of her motion was to adopt Table 4.1. She pointed out that Table 4.1 had already been adopted regarding men's restroom concerns. Therefore, she recommended that in order to make it consistent, Table 4.1 should be adopted for both men and women. Senator Donley reiterated that he proposed reducing the numbers on Page 2, Line 16, as the alternative. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Leman, P. Kelly, Green, Phillips OPPOSED: Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, Wilken, Adams The MOTION FAILED (4-5). Senator Donley MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. He explained on Page 2, Line 16, delete "two" and insert "one" and delete "125" and insert "100". Senator Wilken recommended that the Committee seek further help and assistance regarding the ramifications of the bill. Senator Wilken and Senator Green OBJECTED to Amendment #2. Senator Wilken calculated that in a five thousand-seat arena, eighty-two water closets would be added. He noted that Amendment #2 would add forty-one more. That would be a significant change. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment IN FAVOR: Torgerson, Parnell, Donley, Leman, Adams, P. Kelly, Phillips OPPOSED: Wilken, Green The MOTION PASSED (7-2). Co-Chair Torgerson questioned if the Department could answer technical questions of the Committee. Mr. Perkins offered that the Department could have testimony available at a time specified. Co-Chair Torgerson noted that the bill would be revisited at the evening meeting. SB 8 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.