CSHB 269(FIN)-SAFETY CODE TASK FORCE    CHAIR BUNDE announced CSHB 269(FIN) to be up for consideration. REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM, sponsor, said that this bill is identical to SB 180, sponsored by Senator Therriault, which was already heard in this committee. There is only one difference - the size of the advisory task force was expanded in CSHB 269(FIN) to include more folks. She explained: There are five primary safety codes that deal with construction in Alaska and they are under the jurisdiction of two different departments. Therein lies the majority of the problems. The fire, building and mechanical codes are under the jurisdiction of the fire marshall in the Department of Public Safety and the plumbing and electrical codes are governed by the Department of Labor. Each department is responsible for adopting a family of codes to bring uniformity and consistency for obvious reasons to the construction industry. The current delegation of authority to the respective departments has caused quite a bit of conflict and discrepancies and I know that through the hearings you've had that you are familiar with them. The mission of the Safety Task Force is to suggest options to consolidate the two groups together and they would be tasked with coming back with recommendations that would be due on the first day of our second legislative session. As part of the task force, the legislation proposes an advisory panel. These appointments will be made by the Governor to represent the different areas. The president of the Senate and speaker of the House will jointly appoint 11 additional members that will serve on the advisory committee. The purpose of the advisory group is to advise the task force on the effect of any changes in code adoption to the respective industries that they belong with. This is also to insure the broadest representation of stakeholders so that everyone has a good opportunity and a good chance to voice their concerns.... CHAIR BUNDE asked if it is safe to assume the task force would recommend a single code and whether that is possible. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM replied yes and, although it would be a daunting task, she thought it was possible. All agree that safety is the main issue. MR. GREG MOORE, NANA/Colt Engineering, said his company has 180 stakeholders and they support the idea of the task force, but they remain concerned that no building officials, local or state, will sit in a voting position on the task force. He conceded that building officials will sit on an advisory committee, but said that their input is too valuable to not have a voting position. The argument he has heard is that using a representative from every segment of industry would make the task force too unwieldy and he suggested removing a voting member that might not be as critical to the outcome. He said there is one electric code and no one is disputing an [electrician's] place on the task force. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM responded that her feeling about having a member from the electric community is that even though there is only one code, it's got to mesh with all the other codes. She felt their representation was important. She felt it is important to have a building official on the advisory committee rather than the task force, because building officials have regulatory oversight over private sector members of the task force. Therefore, they have an opportunity to wield undue influence over other members of the task force. MR. COLIN MAYNARD, APDC, agreed with the previous speaker in that the task force needs to be more balanced. He said: The fact of the matter is that code enforcement is done by architects and engineers and code officials, not by contractors or subcontractors. Those are the people who work with it every day designing buildings and overseeing contractors to make sure they are meeting the requirements of the code. To have people that are being overseen deciding what code they're going to do, I think, is incorrect. If the electrical one is not the one to pull out of there to add either another engineer or the building official, then I would combine the plumbing and mechanical seat - because we've heard testimony that almost all of these people have both plumbing and mechanical administrator's licenses, so one person could handle that job. I don't think that what this task force will come out with will be worth anything if the design community and code officials aren't combined in it and right now with this make-up we're not buying into it. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSRTOM said she had made note of his comments again, but she feels that the most efficient way for the task force to be set up is with the members that are currently listed. CHAIR BUNDE asked if she could help the committee understand the issue Mr. Maynard makes about the design people being the ones that are actually doing the enforcement. He questioned, "Indeed, should they, then, be deciding the codes or is that the fox guarding the hen house?" REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if she could have Zach Warwick from Senator Therriault's office help with the answer. SENATOR SEEKINS interjected and said that he had: ...agreed in conversations with the Senate President that if this task force does become a reality, he would be one of the co-chairs and he would not take it kindly for anyone to imply that that task force, then, would be unruly or that the product of the task force would be worthless or I wouldn't spend my time there. CHAIR BUNDE recapped that Mr. Maynard's view is that design folks are the ones that have to police codes; he thought they are the ones that should help decide what code it will be rather than the people who are being policed (plumbers, contractors, etc.). He wanted to know what Mr. Warwick and Senator Therriault thought about that and, if the people who are enforcing the codes get to choose which code, they would have an inherent conflict. MR. ZACH WARWICK, staff to Senator Therriault, responded that he thought there would be some inherent conflict. "It's a like a police officer writing the law." He said that mechanical plumbing administrators are ultimately the ones that go out and inspect their companies' work to make sure everything is up to snuff when it comes time for the building inspectors to come out and actually inspect the building. He stated, So, they do have a very direct need to look at the code as well. Other than that, I'm not sure exactly where that question was heading. I don't think the design and engineering community is the one who polices it; they are the ones who draw the code. It would be the local building official - is the one who is going out and policing it. MR. DOUG MATHERS, Building Official for the City of Kodiak, said he had sent a fax to the committee. He said the task force is a good idea and noted: My problem is I don't really understand how come there's not a building official and a representative from the fire marshal's office as a voting member on the task force. We're the ones responsible for enforcing these codes. They actually developed the codes through the International Code Council and [indisc.]. MR. WARWICK responded by saying that having a building official as a voting member would be similar to Senator Seekins as a car dealer telling the State of Alaska which vehicles to buy. He maintained, "I think that's the kind of influence these people would bring to this task force as a voting member rather than an advisory position." MAYOR STEVEN THOMPSON, City of Fairbanks, said the city feels the task force would be unbalanced without a building official and fire marshall. He indicated: The architects and engineers design the buildings; the building officials enforce the codes and the contractors build the buildings. I really think you need to have a better balance than what you are proposing on this task force. We go through quite a process and I'm sure all the other communities do. We have a code review commission that we appoint. We spent two years having hearings and public meetings on our code review before we decided what to do with them and now to have that possibly changed in the future kind of scares us a bit. We want to make sure this is balanced, that we have the right people on there that are going to have objective views on what's going to be taking place. SENATOR SEEKINS asked about the makeup of the city's code review committee. MAYOR THOMPSON said he would have Steve Shuttlesworth answer that. MR. STEVE SHUTTLESWORTH said the members consisted of Ron Price, a professional architect; Richard Tilly (chairman), Home Builders Association; Jerry Mustard, a mechanical engineer with Holiday Parks; Bill Howe, a co-consultant with C.B. Bettisworth and Co.; Jim Mobius, an electrical engineer; Bill Dryder, a registered structural engineer with PDC; and Patty Pearsall, a registered architect. SENATOR SEEKINS responded that there was one individual involved in actual construction; the rest were engineers, architects and consultants. MR. SHUTTLESWORTH said that was correct. MR. EUGENE RUTLAND, Executive Director, Mechanical Contractors of Alaska, said his organization is made up of about 50 contracting firms that perform construction projects of many types and sizes across the state of Alaska. They believe that code adoption by regulation, which is currently used in this state, is flawed and needs to be looked at. He stated support for CSHB 269(FIN) with no amendments. He said the task force would come up with solutions to issues of code adoption that would have broad support in the construction community and that members would allow the stakeholders to have an equal and effective voice in the process. MR. CHARLES DEARDON, City of Ketchikan, said he was testifying for Mayor Bob Weinstein, and that he agrees with the mayors from Juneau and Fairbanks that this bill is flawed regarding the voting members of the task force. It should include a municipal code official and fire official. MR. JAMES BAISDEN, Kenai Fire Marshal, expressed the same concerns as others that a building and fire official would not be voting members of the task force. He maintained: After the buildings are built, the fire officials still have to deal with these facilities for the next 50 to 75 years and for us not to have an equal voice as a voting member of this committee just doesn't make sense. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM repeated that she appreciates everyone's involvement and that everyone agrees this deals with critical issues. She still believed the current make-up of the task force and advisory panel would be effective. CHAIR BUNDE closed public discussion. SENATOR SEEKINS said he could see how this could be a very contentious issue if the panel is created. Because this is so contentious, the legislature has been asked to become the final arbiter and voters on how the code issues are handled. The contractors need a transition period between codes. Because there is tension between two sets of codes and municipalities across the state are able to adopt different sets of codes, it makes this issue contentious. This task force will have recommendations for the legislature and there will still be time for everyone to weigh in, but he hoped they would come back with good recommendations that adequately protect the safety of Alaskans. TAPE 03-34, SIDE B    SENATOR SEEKINS offered to co-chair the subcommittee and hoped that all those discussions would take place in it. He asked: Would I as a member of the committee put more credence in the vote of someone on the task force versus someone I knew? I've known Steve Shuttlesworth for years; I've known Mayor Thompson for years; I've known several contractors for years; the man who helped put me in business was a mechanical contractor. My dad was an electrical contractor. I had a journeyman's book in the carpenter's union when I was 19 years old.... He said he hoped to bring back a common sense solution to the tension between these two groups. He moved to pass CSHB 294(FIN), version I, from committee with individual recommendations, and said, "...with the commitment, if it passes, as co-chairman that I'll work with everybody to try to come up with a solid recommendation to bring back so we can get it solved next year." CHAIR BUNDE noted there were no objections and it was so ordered.