COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
LABOR AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE
STATE CAPITOL ROOM 418, MAIN CAPITOL
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 2011 9:40 A.M.
HEARING ON HOUSE BILL 725 (OBERLANDER)
BEFORE: HONORABLE RON MILLER, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE WILLIAM KELLER, MINORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE DONNA OBERLANDER (PRIME SPONSOR) HONORABLE RYAN P. AUMENT HONORABLE STEPHEN BLOOM HONORABLE SCOTT W. BOYD HONORABLE JIM COX HONORABLE SHERYL M. DELOZIER HONORABLE MARK M. GILLEN HONORABLE SETH M. GROVE HONORABLE WARREN KAMPF HONORABLE ROB W. KAUFFMAN HONORABLE FRED KELLER HONORABLE KEVIN MURPHY HONORABLE CHERELLE L. PARKER
INDEX
TESTIFIERS
WITNESS PAGE
REP. RON MILLER 4 CHAIRMAN
REP. DONNA OBERLANDER (PRIME SPONSOR) 5
RICHARD DeYOUNG 6 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, AIA PA
JOSH YOUNG 10 CONSTRUCTION INITIATIVE LEADER FOR NORTH AMERICA BASF, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL
ELAM HERR 26 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PA ASSOCIATION OF TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS
STEVE BRANDVOLD 37 PRESIDENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CODE ASSOCIATION, BOARD MEMBER OF PA ASSOCIATION OF BUILDING CODE OFFICIALS
KAREN WELSH 43 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, CODE OFFICIALS ALLIANCE OF PENNSYLVANIA
AUS MARBURGER 48 REVIEW AND ADVISORY COUNCIL, PA FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES INSTITUTE
DAN WISE 63 CODES TASK FORCE, PA BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
FRANK THOMPSON 73 CHAIRMAN, UCC REVIEW AND ADVISORY COUNCIL WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED:
JANET MILKMAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DELAWARE VALLEY GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL
RITA DALLAGO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENTIAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION
SEAN CLEARY IAPMO FIELD REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS
CHAIRMAN MILLER: I apologize for the delay in getting started, folks.
Welcome to this hearing of the House Labor and Industry Committee on House Bill 725 by Representative Donna Oberlander, who is here with us.
I need to make a comment that the proceedings are being recorded by the Bipartisan
Management Committee and may be released to the media and used for the transcripts and every other type of use. I'm not sure that we're being broadcast live, but it may appear on a loop later.
As you know, the House has passed House Bill 377, a Representative Garth Everett bill that addresses several issues contained in House Bill 725. The primary reason for moving House
Bill 377 was the desire to move the repeal of the residential sprinkler mandate in a timely manner. We are facing a tough economic recovery and many of us were concerned that that sprinkler mandate would impact the housing industry and most of us believe that housing normally leads us out of a recession. That is why House Bill 377 was moved separate of House
Bill 725.
That doesn't minimize other elements of Representative Oberlander's bill. Hopefully, today's hearing will focus mainly on potential change to the process by which the triennial
International Code Council codes are adopted, addition of members to the Uniform Construction
Code Advisory and Review Council, and three, a creation of a $2 building permit fee to fund operations of the Council. There are other elements in this bill, most of those have been addressed in House Bill 377. I will now turn it over to Chairman Keller for some remarks.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman.
I don't think 377 was moved in a timely manner, I thought that was warp speed that we moved that bill. Hopefully we can slow things down and have a better look at addressing the bills redoing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: We'll speed ahead Mr. ZooLoo.
Representative Oberlander, would you like to take the microphone for some comments?
REPRESENTATIVE OBERLANDER: Thank you, Chairman Miller. Thank you
Chairman Keller, members of the Labor Committee. I appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing on House Bill 725. As Chairman Miller stated, this hearing is being held to discuss specifically the portions of the bill that relate to the adoption of changes to the UCC Code, composition of the advisory board, and its operations.
In broad terms, this bill would expand the size of the Council by four members, adding individuals representing low-income housing, realtors, commercial building owners, and residential building owners, and changes the quorum requirements to reflect these additional members.
The bill changes the current process of adoption to require the review of the latest triennial ICC Codes to begin within 90 days of the publication date, and to take no longer than
15 months.
It would require at least six public hearings across the State to get the input from across our State from all walks of life. The Council would have to submit their report to the Secretary of
Labor and Industry with recommendations supported by at least two-thirds vote of the Council stating one, the impact that the provision might have on the health, safety, and welfare of the public; the economic reasonableness; financial impact of the provision; technical feasibility of the provision; and lastly, the financial impact of the provision on affordable housing.
The bill also proposes a $2 fee, as Chairman Miller stated, on each building permit to support the operations of the Council, including reimbursement for travel, lodging, and meals for the advisory members.
After 7-years of Pennsylvania having the UCC Code in place, I believe that this bill makes necessary changes to move Pennsylvania forward. I look forward to hearing the testimony of each of the panelists.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you, Representative Oberlander.
Our first panel is a panel from AIA Pennsylvania, if that panel would come forward.
I would note that if you have an agenda, it lists Jack Armstrong testifying for the
American Chemistry Council, and pinch hitting for him today is Josh Young.
If you would, I don't know who is going first, but whoever does, if you would just identify yourself and proceed. Thank you.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Thank you Chairman Miller and Chairman Keller and members of the Committee. My name is Rich DeYoung, and I am representing AIA
Pennsylvania today.
AIA Pennsylvania is a State component of the American Institute of Architects. Our membership in the State is over 3,000 architect members, and we are the only organization that represents architects and architecture in the Commonwealth. I am the Managing Partner of WTW
Architects in Pittsburgh. I have been practicing for 38 years and have extensive experience in the design of a wide variety of institutional, commercial, and residential projects. I am the past
President of AIA Pennsylvania, and I currently serve as a representative to the National Board of
Director's of AIA.
Architecture is a licensed profession because architects are entrusted with the health, safety, and welfare of the public with every building that we design. The law, allowing only architects to design buildings for habitation by people, recognizes the education, preparation, experience, and breadth of knowledge that goes into creating a competent architect.
The members of the AIA are generally recognized as experts on building codes. Building owners, contractors, engineers, and municipalities rely on architects to fully integrate the myriad requirements of building codes and other safety standards into the work we do. In fact, the model building codes used throughout the United States – of which our own UCC is one of them – are written by groups of professionals that include many architects.
AIA Pennsylvania commends the General Assembly for the bipartisan effort to enact a
Statewide building code, and in establishing the UCC Review and Advisory Council in Act 106 of 2008, to carefully examine proposed changes to the code and advise L&I and the General
Assembly. The existence and current role of the UCC RAC was specifically supported by the
Commonwealth Court in a recent decision, Pennsylvania Builders Association v. Department of
Labor and Industry.
With the passage of time, we learn what improvements can be made in processes. House
Bill 725 provides us with the opportunity to begin that discussion relative to the UCC Review and Advisory Committee. Although AIA opposes the legislation in its current form, we concur with some aspects of the bill. However, we feel strongly that some changes must be made to the legislation before we can support it.
First, we concur that there is merit in holding hearings around the State. Interested parties already have the ability to testify before the Review and Advisory Committee, having hearings around the State may enhance that participation. Whether it is the six hearings in House Bill 725 or three in Senator Corman's Senate Bill 752, we leave that to the General Assembly to determine. There is merit in providing additional staff support from L&I for the work of the RAC, and to provide reimbursement for the RAC members. Again, we leave that to the General
Assembly and L&I to look at the fiscal impact. We do suggest that before adding a $2 additional building permit fee, that the legislature look at funds collected through existing permits to see how they may be used.
We also leave the discussion of appropriate time frame for the RAC to conduct its work and for L&I and the General Assembly, with input from the RAC itself. On a related matter, we ask that the language in Section 304(2)(a) be examined closely to ensure that the timeframes for promulgation of regulations are in fact realistic given the IRCC process; 90 days may not be sufficient time. We leave the substance of that decision, again, to the General Assembly and
L&I.
So, what aspects of the bill are problematic for AIA? First, we disagree with the changes proposed in the composition and operation of the RAC. The primary purpose of building codes has been, and remains, to save lives. The writing of codes requires a perspective that maintains the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare above commercial interests. Therefore, the composition of any committee or council reviewing codes must respect and support the perspective of those licensed to or charged with the responsibility of preserving life, rather than the motives that are focused on special interest or personal profit. The current composition is appropriately grouped into three types of representatives that have some measure of liability in the deployment of the code. First, architects and engineers. Second, local government. Third, builders and contractors.
House Bill 725 increases the size of the RAC by four by adding low-income housing, realtor, and building owner representatives. This creates an uneven playing field by weighting the RAC toward residential and economic interests and including interests that do not have liability interest in the deployment of the code. This inappropriate composition becomes an even bigger concern with the proposed change to a two-thirds vote of the Council required for recommendations, and the change in what constitutes a quorum.
It should be noted that the vast majority of the UCC codes pertain to non-residential construction. Market oriented groups, such as those representing low-income housing, realtors, and building owners should be encouraged to present testimony and information to the RAC so they can carry out its evaluation of the code based on the existing criteria, which includes financial and economic impact. It should also be noticed that a bigger RAC will be more costly to administer.
The addition of criteria D, "the financial impact that the provision may have on the public's ability to purchase affordable housing" is basically unnecessary because it is already covered by criteria B, "the economic reasonableness and financial impact of the provision".
Therefore, the current criteria that the RAC uses for evaluation doesn't need to be changed.
AIA Pennsylvania supports the provisions in House Bill 725 that keep the authority of the
RAC focused on the triennial code amendments, new code provisions, and commenting on legislation. However, we do not agree that the RAC should be provided with the expanded authority to draft or amend new language, nor should L&I be granted the authority to edit the recommendations of the RAC. Rather, such changes to the language of the code should remain the purview of the General Assembly, with comment and input from the RAC, as was the original intent.
That having been said, legislative changes to the UCC must be approached with great care. The code is an integrated suite of codes. Seemingly simple changes in one provision of the code may impact other provisions or concepts within the codes. Careful review and advice from trained professionals on the Review and Advisory Committee should be considered by the
General Assembly before finalizing any legislated amendments. Also, because the codes evolve over time reflecting changes in industry practices, any legislative change should include a sunset provision that upon implementation of the next triennial code would require the review and coordination with the newer version of the code.
Finally, the option to allow local jurisdictions to implement more stringent requirements than those included in the code should be preserved. While not all municipalities may wish to impose a higher standard of care, the option should exist for those who do.
On behalf of AIA Pennsylvania, thank you for this opportunity to address the House
Labor and Industry Committee. This is an important topic that has implications for all building types in Pennsylvania, and for the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the
Commonwealth. I would be glad to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you Mr. DeYoung.
We will allow Mr. Young to testify first and then we will go to the questions. Thank you.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Josh Young, I am here on behalf of the American Chemistry Council to address House Bill 725, legislation that we feel does have some very regressive changes to the way the Construction Code is adopted, particularly some unnecessary additional hearings, delayed deadlines, and the addition of new partial committee members that may be detrimental to the code.
First, here in the Commonwealth, a little bit about the American Chemistry Council. We represent the major chemical and plastic manufacturers throughout the State. We employ over 46,000 direct employees in the State, contribute $3.6 billion in payroll expenditures, and over twelve-and-a-half billion dollars in federal and State tax revenue. Now, you may ask yourself why does the chemistry and plastic industry care about the building codes? For one reason: energy efficiency. It is a key proponent of what are going to and what they do. There are three major reasons why we have a vested interest in this legislation.
The first is, as you may know, we use a lot of energy in our products and in the formation of our products. For example, natural gas. Not only does it heat our facilities, but it is actual feed stock in the chemical and plastic manufacturing process. So, when you have energy efficiency products, you decrease energy demand.
The second would be the very products that we're talking about to create energy efficient homes and buildings are our products. Products that are manufactured right here in the State.
Products manufactured by companies like DASF, NaSO chemicals, ranging from Pittsburgh to
Philadelphia. We're talking about caulking, we're talking about vinyl siding, we're talking about windows, roofing, solar panels, I could go on and on, foam insulation, so again, that is where our vested interest in updating building codes lies and that is in the energy efficiency portion.
We strongly support the adoption of the latest code and we commend Pennsylvania for being one of the leaders in adopting it, the 10090 version of the ITC.
Now, you would also say, well, this is not a code roll back. But in many ways, it is. The changes that are being made to this code and to the process could have a very similar effect into what we have seen happen in Ohio, where literally the process of adopting residential codes has come to a grinding halt because of certain special interests on their advisory process. I'll talk about some very specifics. My colleague mentioned them and I'm not going to go into great detail but they're in my testimony. The first, largest problem that we have with the legislation would be the two-thirds majority vote. You guys know how Congress works up in D.C., the two-thirds is essentially a filibuster. It's not meant to progress any sort of legislation, it's meant to halt. It's not meant to implement anything, it's to bring it directly to stop in its tracks. We find that very problematic, and clearly not a good intention of the bill.
The second would be, there's really no apportion of the changes that address energy in the long term. We talk about upfront costs, and I'm sure you're going to hear a lot about that later today, but you really have to examine the life cycle analysis of what these homes mean in terms of not only the cost of building it, but what it's going to mean for the homeowners over, say, a
30-year mortgage. How much money they will save in their energy and utility bills because of the energy and efficiency portions of the building code.
Finally, I would like to address the energy demand side. As we mentioned, it's often the low hanging fruit on energy discussions. Energy efficiency is not only the fruit that is hanging on the tree, it's fallen to the ground. You can't get to energy efficiency without our products, specifically without addressing the building codes for residential and commercial builders.
So, those are our key points and we what we have specific problems with the process.
Again, we applaud the State of Pennsylvania for being a leader when it comes to building code adoption. We feel that some of these process changes will essentially bring any future changes to a grinding halt. I'd be happy to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you to both of you for your testimony.
Mr. DeYoung, you made a point and you basically, because the codes evolve over time reflecting changes in industry practices, any legislative change should include a sunset provision.
We also talked about two-thirds would really slow the process down. I'm a little concerned about that recommendation on the sunset provision, because on a 2-year cycle we could really slow things down if once we pass something or change something it sunsets every two years or every three years on the triennial review. I guess my concern is, for example, we have changed the code about seven times over the past 8, 10 years. Every one of those would have sunset when the next triennial update came out, so things that we spent a lot of time working on would sunset.
Like, we had one to help out our fairs and events such as that because of the fact the code actual required a volunteer group to put a fire suppression system over their grill in a little 10x10 tent.
So, we went in and legislatively changed that. I think this one might be problematic. What is the justification for it?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Many of these will be very perfunctory and simple to say okay, this still applies. What happens is as the code changes, provisions change. For instance, back in
'07, there was a change, the code had, frankly, a very strange provision about anchor bolts that we didn't agree with either. We thought it was bad and needed to be changed, and the legislature in its wisdom changed it. However, in the '09 code, that was corrected, but that '07 provision still stands in the bill. It, frankly, doesn't make sense anymore. It shouldn't be there. That is the kind of thing that we're looking at, that if you make a change, the codes are constantly evolving, and we just want to say that the RAC would, each time the triennial code comes out, look at those legislative changes and say, do they still apply? Is there change? Did the chapter number change?
Did the reference change? It may no longer make sense.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: From that aspect I totally agree, and thank you.
Chairman Keller, questions.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
A couple of weeks ago when we were arguing House Bill 377 my argument always centered around the safety issue. I was glad to hear you say that you also believe that the code is safety. I'm just going to read form the legislative findings of Act 45. One of the basic premises of the UCC is to provide for the protection of life, health, property, and the environment and the safety and welfare of the consumer, general public, and owners and occupants of buildings and structures. That was part of the argument that UCC isn't in the business of jump starting the economy, it's about safety.
I'm also concerned about this bill. For example, the bill removes new wall bracing requirements as well as outdoor deck attachment requirements. I'm a legislator, I don't know much about deck attachments, I don't know if we should be in here doing this. I just wondered
AIA's position of the legislature going in and making changes like this, which I have no idea why they're there and why we're doing it.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: That is exactly the reason why AIA supported the Review and
Advisory Committee and we're a leader in the collaborative effort to get that legislation passed.
Frankly, you need to know a little bit about a lot of things, and you're not going to be experts on everything and we recognize that. You should rely on the Review and Advisory Committee who have trained professionals on it, not special interest groups, but professionals who deal with the codes everyday who can say this makes sense or it doesn't make sense.
Let me give you an example on the sprinklers. We're not going to take a position on the sprinklers, because our members are split on whether they prefer it or not. But, when the ICC changed the requirements for sprinklers in residential code, the previous versions had different advantages, if you used certain kinds of construction you didn't have to do it, if you did other things you did have to sprinkler. When they put a blanket requirement in for sprinklers, they took all of those things out. What happens is when you make a blanket removal of the sprinklers and you don't look at that impact, all of a sudden now you're letting less safe construction be built without sprinklers. This is the kind of the thing that the Advisory Committee, if you have architects and engineers and contractors on it, the people who deal with it every day, can help you and say, that's fine if you want to take them out, but, you should have some provisions that say if you do this you need to sprinkler, if you don't do that then you take it out. Just taking it out moves us back 15-years in fire safety in buildings. It's nowhere near where we should be. You should rely on us. That's why you have the professionals on the committee and why it should only be professionals and not special interest groups.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Mr. Chairman, I move we end this hearing right now.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: With all due respect, overruled.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: One more question. Do you have a representative on UCC?
Which I guess you do, the Review and Advisory Committee?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Yes, we do. We have two. The architects are represented by an architect with commercial experience, commercial institutional building design experience; and one with residential building design experience.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: And I would imagine that every time you have a concern you bring it to those people and go through the process?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: I think we have a good bill as it stands now, Mr. Chairman.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: We agree.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: I would just note that in the repeal language, there was note made of construction differences and recognition of that, and there were some requirements inserted into that that helps to address some of it.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Some of it, yes.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Understood. Appreciate that.
Next question, Representative Gillen.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Thank you very much for testifying Mr. DeYoung and
Mr. Young.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Coincidental.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Mr. DeYoung, question on your testimony regarding special interests. In fact, both of you gentlemen mentioned special interests. Could you define terms for me, what is a special interest?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: I think that we would say a special interest is a group who is interested in a particular outcome from a provision of the code as opposed to the overall life, safety, and welfare that is promulgated by the code. So, if you get an interest that is looking at low-cost housing, they have a very specific directed interest. If you're looking at contractors or architects or engineers on the committee, they're looking at the broad impact of the code in constructability, costs, safety, all of the issues and not one particular issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: And then also the question of personal profit as a motive, how would that be a motive, someone in business for the purpose of making a profit? You seemed to indicate that that should be questioned as a motive?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: No, we're all in business to make a profit – as hard as it's been the last few years for most of us, and that's an admirable perspective for a business to be in it for profit. But, when you're dealing with the life, safety, and welfare of people, to make a decision about a code, to make it more cost-effective so you can make more money on your product is not what the code is about. The code is about protecting people. It's not about protecting the profit of a particular business or area.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: So you're indicating by that comment that profit and public service are not inconsistent, though as private entrepreneurs improve on a product it can indeed be a safer product, side airbags and automobiles?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: The American Institute of Architects, is that a 501(c)(3) or is it a for profit entity in terms of the members that you represent, individual architects are in business to make a profit?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: The American Chemistry Council, you represent for profit entities?
MR. YOUNG: We are obviously a non-profit organization, but the various organizations certainly our various companies, absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Okay. So, the special interests, could somebody quantify what you are doing, conceivably, as being a special interest?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: I guess you could. I don't. What we're doing is we're looking—
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: The question was, others quantifying the position that you're in and the testimony that you're giving in the businesses that you represent, could others quantify that as a special interest?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Anyone can quantify anything anyway, so it's possible.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: It's possible. It wouldn't be a stretch, I wouldn't imagine. DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: I think it is a stretch. Because, we're licensed by the State to protect the health, safety, welfare of the public. We're designed professionals. It's not about profit. It's about, we have an obligation to the State, to the members of the Commonwealth to protect them.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: I’m an Emergency Medical Technician. I have been an
Emergency Medical Technician for over 20-years, and I suppose as much as anybody else who deals with safety on a regular basis and makes life saving and changing decisions, that is certainly preeminently what I'm about. I think it largely defines the character of those who are in emergency medical services. By the same token, we are paid professionals, and to the extent that we would represent the organization in the way that you're representing, some would quantify it as a special interest and I wouldn't reject that qualifier. So, I was just trying to divine and discern the special interest that you are referring to, just being certain that there was no aspersion cast on profit as a motive.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: No, absolutely not. And when we're talking about special interests, we're saying that it's people that represent groups that are not about what the code is about, which is about protecting health, safety, and welfare of the public. That they're about another motive. They're not directly connected to what the code is about. They're there for a different reason. Profits fine. We all support profit.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.
Representative Boyd.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity, and gentlemen, thanks for testifying.
Certainly very much appreciated the prior discussion, the gentlemen from Berks County's very gracious in the way he characterizes things, I think some of us would have been a bit more direct and said we believe, I believe that you are a special interest, and I believe you are here testifying on behalf of your special interest, specially the chemical industry. I would suggest that the intent of the code, trying to promote energy efficiency specially benefits your industry, and in that fact, I understand why you would testify to that, I would suggest, my personal opinion is the market place is a much better way and a much better process for that to unfold. We might have divergent opinions on that, but as you and your industry develop products that make it more cost- effective for me to install those products, I'm going to do that. I don't need to be told by the government to do that. If it benefits me, I'll make a market decision to do that. I believe that's the way the capitalistic system that we have works, and I believe it works very, very well. I don't think that your specific industry has that much to do with the safety, health, and well being. I'm sure that there are chemicals that are safety oriented, don't disagree with that, and I understand that part of the code.
The second comment that I'd like to make is, is that in this process, I believe the home owner as a consumer is a special interest that is the one that ends up picking up the tab and is getting rolled-over by this code. I wasn't in the legislature when this code was passed, but I was on this Committee when the regs were promulgated, Chairman Miller was not the Chairman of this Committee at this point in time, I believe that would have been Bob Allen or Bob Flick, but I remember when the regs came out and I actually read the regs, I was shocked. I was struck by the impact that this bill, this law was going to have on the average consumer as to doing something as simple as renovations on their home. We, which is relatively rare I've come to find out from speaking to other members, we as a Committee actually made recommendations to have those regs changed in the IRC process, some of which were adopted and some of which weren't ultimately put into the final regulations.
To suggest that the homeowner or consumer shouldn't be on the RAC, that that is not an interest should be represented I don't believe is fair. I believe that there should be a consumer advocate of some sort, and I believe Representative Oberlander goes at that in this bill so I think that provision is a very, very positive position. Realtors have their thumb, their finger on the pulse of the housing industry and what the value is going on in the housing industry, so I believe that there is certainly some merit to having them involved in the process.
The issue of safety is not mutually exclusive to the concept behind the building code, which was in part, also, to have a consistent code so that a builder who is building – I literally have, in my legislative district, I have developments that township lines run between. On one side of the line the building code was different than the other side of the line. I believe a big part of the driving force to getting a uniform construction code passed, albeit a part of the safety and health of for the consumer, was also that there was a consistency so that a builder or an architect didn't have to design two different buildings depending on which side of the street he was on and if the line ran between that house which code did he adhere to. There was some thought process to that.
I guess the question I have is, is that if the code in 2006 was safe, why isn't it safe in 2009 or 2011? Why can't we just have a code that was defined as safe at a certain point in time and let that code be static, let it be what it is, and periodically as this legislature does what it gets paid to do, and that is review if that code should be updated, have recommendations that come from individuals that talk about new standards in the industry. Why is that not safe? I don't know that that is a problem.
MR. YOUNG: In the very beginning, Representative, if I could just address a few points.
I don't think energy efficiency is a just a chemical company issue. I think energy efficiency is a national energy security issue. I think energy efficiency is important to businesses, it's important to homeowners, it's important to commercial sector, the residential sector, energy efficiency can get us away from our dependence on foreign oil. I think that there are a lot of opportunities with energy efficiency. But you raise good points, certainly, anyone who knows how to promote the aspects that they can bring to that, but I think, like I said, energy efficiency is supported by Chambers of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, its supported by
Congressional bodies, it's supported by bipartisan leaders and various State bodies and Congress.
That's the first thing, I think energy efficiency is a much broader discussion.
The second thing is, I think that the homeowner situation that you brought up, we would argue that there's a chance that if home aren't built to the energy efficiency standards that they can get rolled right out of their mortgage payment. We feel, not feel, the number one cause of people can't pay their mortgage payment is because of utilities. If homes were built more energy efficient, there is a lot of evidence and I'm sure we'll go back and forth on numbers, there's a lot of evidence that people would stay in their home longer, that there would be more opportunities, both low-income and high-income, that they could stay in their homes longer if homes were built more energy efficient.
I will let my colleague address the issue of safety.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: We have learned an awful lot in the last 20 or 30-years about the way buildings are built. In this State we had a fire and panic code that was so antiquated and outdated that it was almost laughable. It was an embarrassment that we had to deal with that code in this State because it was a static code.
The ICC is recognized throughout the country as the code development process where we learn how to make buildings safer and more energy efficient and better. The adoption of those and the growth with that is an important aspect.
If you look at automobiles, we didn't have seat belts, we didn't have airbags, and a lot of things that were legislated in as requirements that today we take for granted and we wouldn't want to buy a car without it. If your kids were looking to buy a car and they were going to buy one without airbags, you would say you can't do that, buy a newer car that has airbags because it is really safe. That kind of growth and progression in codes is a very natural thing, and for us to keep up to date with it really keeps us at the forefront and doesn't let us lag behind as a State. I think that is very important.
Your comment about people on the Review and Advisory Committee, I just want to react to that, because we believe input from realtors and homeowners and low-income housing groups is very vital and very important – as input. But they shouldn't be making the final decision. It's almost akin to saying that if you go to your doctor you want the receptionist to participate in the decision on what the doctor is going to do to you. You really don't want that, you want the person that's trained and skilled. Architects and engineers are the ones who are licensed by this
State to do this. We're the ones who have a vested interest in it that's given to us by the State, demanded of us by the State. It's important that they're the people making the final decisions, and of course we have to listen to that input, and that is how the law is structured right now. That we listen to the input and economic feasibility is one of the criteria that currently exists that needs to be looked at by the Review and Advisory Committee. We agree with that, we just don't think they should be the ones making the decision. REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: I certainly appreciate the dialogue and the discussion, and I certainly appreciate the perspective. I personally think your analogy breaks down because I'm not expecting the receptionist in a medical profession to weigh-in, but it's a decision between my doctor and I. He may suggest that I have two choices, I can lose weight or I can take medication for blood pressure. Maybe I would weigh-in that it would be better to lose weight and then I put that into my position. I'm not suggesting, I believe the analogy breaks down.
Regarding the whole energy efficiency issue and it being a global issue, I understand.
You're looking at a guy who got his driver's permit in 1974. Do you remember 1974?
MR. YOUNG: Representative, I do not.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: Well, I do. I remember sitting in gas lines and I remember being told that we're going to be energy dependent and we're going to do all of this stuff and now
I'm driving the green car of the year, a TDI Diesel at 45 miles to the gallon and I'm still paying four bucks a gallon of fuel for diesel. We're more energy efficient than we ever were, and we're more dependent on this global issue, so I'm not so sure that whatever the goal is that we're getting it done. I would suggest that maybe if we would drill a little bit more we might not have some of the problems that we have, and we might have a dialogue about that one we might agree on that one. I don't know that it's the role of the code to define that. That's my point. I thought the codes intent was public safety, as Chairman Keller mentioned, but I was also for consistency.
One last point, Mr. Chairman, and then I'll relinquish the floor. The average car now is up costing, you can't really touch a car for 25, 30,000 bucks. Some of it is because it's a cocoon. I just suggest that if people would stop doing 85 on Route 283 and blowing by me like they are
Jimmie Johnson in NASCAR, I might be a little bit safer. I might not need the global airbags.
That's a whole other subject. CHAIRMAN MILLER: It certainly is. I said it certainly is a whole other subject.
Representative Murphy, please.
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young, does your industry work following the standards of the International Fuel
Gas Code?
MR. YOUNG: I'm not sure I can answer that, Representative. I can definitely find that out.
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: I would appreciate that.
Mr. DeYoung, can you clarify under House Bill 725, the legislation deletes the requirement for the Department of Labor and Industry to adopt the code. Does that mean that we would be giving the Council jurisdiction to adopt the code? Or does that mean that we wouldn't adopt the code at all?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: No, not at all. It means that that decision would be with the legislature and with the advice and recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
Now, if there are no changes recommended then L&I could just adopt it as the current legislation exists.
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Okay, thank you.
Just as a follow-up, if the Council is given oversight, is this an area of law that the UCC
Review and Advisory Council would be qualified to oversee?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: I'm not sure I follow that.
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Well, if the UCC is given the oversight, would they be more qualified than Labor and Industry to make that determination?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Probably, yes, I would say that's true, because we have professionals on there that are trained that there are few of in the Department of Labor and
Industry. Labor and Industry covers a broad range of areas and not just building codes. I think the advice from the Review and Advisory Committee has, right now in its composition of all the components that have training and skill and experience to advise on that.
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: I guess my point is that that would fly in the face of why the council was even created, as Mr. Keller and several other members of this Committee indicated, it has to do with public safety. When you have bureaucracy in the way of an Advisory
Council whose only charge is to look out for the health, safety, and welfare of Pennsylvanians, I think that presents a problem.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: I'm not sure I'm following the argument.
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Hopefully those that are watching can, but my point is that we already have a council that is set up.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: And there is a composition of those that are members.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: That was created for a reason, and to expand that and to give others oversight and a more significant hand in the decision making process undermines the reason that the UCC was even created. Would that be correct?
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Yeah, I think by expanding the membership and having other non-professionals on it, that does undermine it. The reason the Review and Advisory Committee was there is to provide you in the legislature and L&I the kind of professional expert viewpoint and interpreting and understanding the code and what it means and whether it should be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: I think some of the claims by some of the other members as far as special interests, as was mentioned earlier, any entity could be deemed a special interest, as well as those that may be participating in the future if this change were to take place.
That's all I have, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.
Seeing no other questions, I would just note gentlemen that for 25-years I dealt with the
NFPA regs and I appreciate your point that regs do need to change, because certain things in our lives continue to change and shift whether it's construction materials, whatever. I would also note that I suspect that some of the changes that are made periodically and the updates also help to sell the new subscriptions to the codes. It's always been a slight concern of mine as I look at the whole process of adopting codes and people weighing in and I question whether we really need a triennial update. Maybe it shouldn't even be triennial, maybe it should be as needed type thing, because I would think that there would be sometimes where we need to address certain things even faster.
Anyway, my impression of it after 25-years of dealing with some other forms of codes.
I thank you for your testimony. Thank you very much.
DIRECTOR DeYOUNG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Our next testifier is the PA State Association of Township
Supervisors, Elam Herr.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: Thank you Mr. Chairman. It seems like
I was just here not too long ago. I will, again today summarize my comments since you have the written ones in front of you and hopefully keep us a little bit on schedule.
I am Elam Herr, I am Assistant Executive Director for the Township Supervisors Association. Just so everyone realizes where we're coming from, we represent approximately
95% of the land mass within the Commonwealth and we have probably about 45% of the population.
With that in mind, basically we support the concept of what is in House Bill 725, but we do have several issues with it that should be addressed. First of all, what we have to realize is that since the UCC was first adopted in 1999, the original code was the BOCA code, which was a regional code council that was looking at the United States from a regional perspective. The code that we have today, the IBC code, is more of a national code and they take everything into consideration. One of the concerns our members have voiced over the years is that the problem with the process that we go through today, things are put into the code that may be good for one part of the country but does not necessarily lend itself to Pennsylvania, and we have numerous times asked for clarification to that.
I also have to bring up at this time that there are a few provisions in this bill that I know we're not addressing today, but I'd be remiss if I didn't bring it up, and that is the residential sprinkler. That was one of the issues that really set the fire under this type of legislation. From the perspective of our Association, we support local option for residential sprinklers. We don't think it's a State mandate. Pennsylvania is very diverse. There are those areas of the State that do not want sprinklers, there are those areas of the State that do want sprinklers. Our position has been all along that it should be a local determination. But, since that's not part of the legislation today I will not address it.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: I appreciate that, thank you.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: Anytime.
There are some other things that should be brought up besides the sprinkler issue. The code looks at, when the ICC goes through the process it looks at numerous things. One of the other examples, just to show you how far it has gone astray, in our opinion is that the code also addresses the width requirements for fire apparatus access roads. I can tell you without having the code in play that the fire companies, whether they are paid or volunteer, do work with municipalities about addressing the issue of getting fire apparatus to the structures within a municipality. You don't need some International Code Council telling what needs to be done.
This is a safety code, but let's realize what it is. It's a safety code for structures, not necessarily every aspect of what is happening within the municipality.
To the Code Council, again, what is being proposed with the expansion of the Code
Council we really do not have a problem with the expansion. We feel that additional members to that Council could and would lend some benefit into the review process.
The present system, in our opinion, is not working. What is there, what we have seen with the latest revisions that came down from ICC was a total failure. The Council rejected one provision and then after the Department said, do you realize what we have to go through decided to reverse their decision so it wouldn't have to go through the regulatory process. It's not the way an Advisory Council should work.
But, with that being said, we also have problems with the way this bill is written in that there are several provisions that we take exception to. One is that if the Council does not report back within the 15 months, and again, I will say that we support that extended period, give the
Council sufficient time to look at that, but if they don't report back, the new revisions are not approved. Literally what it does with the two-thirds vote, and you heard from the previous panel, it basically puts us at a stagnant position. We will stay with 2009 forever. It's very difficult to get two-thirds vote on anything. With having the two-thirds requirement, we're scared that we will stay where we're at.
There was a question to the last panel about changing of codes and also a comment by
Chairman Miller about codes should be changed. I'll give you an example. In 1980 there was an
Act 222 dealing with energy conservation. That Act was never changed from 1980 until 1999 when the UCC went into effect. During that time period, energy standards changed substantially and yet we could not get it changed. There are needs to review codes. The situation should be based on what is good for Pennsylvania. What is good for the different areas of the State, and not looked at a uniform type of code.
If you look at what is being proposed again, too often what we see is that interests groups, special interest groups, I'll bring that back up, want government to be everything to everyone all the time, and we cannot do that. Yes, it's nice when you do put certain things in and as far as safety measures are concerned, yes they should be considered, and if they are legitimate they should go in. Again, if it's just for some particular reason then government is put into an awkward position. It is my members who have to make that decision. It is my members who listen to the people who start complaining about what has to be done. That whole situation needs to be addressed.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, what I would request is in looking at this piece of legislation, is that we do take the position that the code, and if you read the beginning of it as Representative
Keller was looking at earlier, it says that the ICC is a minimum code, and give municipalities more flexibility in addressing issues for that particular municipality. Too often what happens is the Department and/or the courts have said that a particular municipality is not unique in its standards when it tries to amend their code. I can tell you, basically in Pennsylvania, although we are very diverse, we are a very diverse State as far as geography and everything else, we are not unique. Everybody has the same type of problems. If you have the same type of problems, then you're not unique. We have one municipality, I'll hit on the sprinkler for a second just to give an example. In the '80s adopted the residential sprinkler because it was a traffic issue. The average time in 1980 to get vehicles, fire vehicles from the fire house to the scene was over 20 minutes.
That was the average time taking in both day and night circumstances. They felt it was a legitimate reason to put in residential sprinklers. Today, when somebody wants to adopt an amendment to their ordinance, which has to be as least stringent or more stringent than the law, and they use the argument that traffic, the response back is that everybody has traffic problems.
And that's true. The unique standard is a problem when there is a legitimate need to address a problem that is out there.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, you have my written testimony. At your convenience, after reading it, I'm available at any time to answer any questions and I'll try to answer any questions you have today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.
I will start with just one question. Your support, your organizations support for local option. Allowing a local opt-in for residential sprinklers, would you allow a local opt-in for the
UCC? Let me go a little farther. Would we allow a local opt-in for the acre bill, the Right to
Farm Act? Where does local opt-in stop and where does consistency in a Commonwealth with so many different municipalities, as you noted how many different townships you represent, where does local opt-in or even opt-out, where do we get any consistency and where do we address what we intended to address with the UCC and the Acre Right to Farm, the smoking ban across the State, how do we make that decision?
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: The reason I hesitated when you first asked the question was I was trying to remember the percentage number of municipalities that actually opted-in through the UCC in 2004 when the regs were finally adopted. At the time we were working on the legislation in the late '90s, we presumed that if half opted-in we'd be ahead of the game. Ninety some percent of the municipalities opted-in, from very small rural townships to very large urban townships and include boroughs and cities into that. There was a large opt-in provision. The reason for it was two-fold. One, the safety aspects that we have discussed; and two was to have some control or better control of how the operation works.
Understand if you did not opt-in to the UCC, it still was in place in Pennsylvania. The enforcement mechanism is different, but theoretically a builder was still to build to the standards of the UCC.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: I appreciate that clarification, that's what I was just checking with my Executive Director, because the UCC was still applicable across the whole State. The opt-in was only in the enforcement and the administration of it. Okay.
I appreciate your answer on that. Representative Boyd.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm just going to make one brief comment, and Elam it's good to see you and thanks for the testimony. You made some good points and two-thirds might be a little bit of a lift, certainly something to consider.
The one comment I would make is that when the UCC was adopted, one of the things that happened was, you made the comment that it was your members that were fielding the issues, what I found happened, and I think some other members here found happened was their constituencies would go and want to do a building project; a renovation, there would be this permitting process and then the inspection process and this whole new level of bureaucracy that they didn't go through prior to the UCC, and when they would go to their township their code enforcement officer and say, well, what are you doing? This is onerous. Then they go to the supervisors and the supervisors did this. They pointed right to the State legislators and said, they put this mandate on us, it's their problem. That's what I got a lot of, and when they couldn't get an inspector out for 30-days or 45-days and they had their footings sitting there and they couldn't start laying blocks because they didn't get their inspection, we got blamed for that. We're sensitive to that issue when we pass something that is Statewide and we delegate the administration to it, and we take the blame for the way its administrated.
A lot of these UCC code issues are trying to deal with that and hopefully we can find some common ground, which I think from your testimony we can.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: I think the look on my face you were reacting to was not so much of what you were saying, but it's the issue that anytime something is passed by the legislature and pushed down onto the municipalities as a mandate, of course it gets voiced out there that this is a mandate that's coming back from Harrisburg. Rightfully or wrongfully. Again, those municipalities that decided to administer and enforce it, I have my own run-ins with my township over construction project that I had a few years ago. The difference between me and a lot of other citizens is I have to know what's in the law and they don't, which gets to an interesting conversation when you're making some accusations. Let's leave it at that.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.
Chairman Keller.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Herr, the previous testifier from AIA, I asked him a question that if he had problems and he went to the Advisory Council it seemed to work out pretty well. I take from your testimony that that's the opposite experience that you've had?
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: Mr. Chairman, under the RAC requirements, we have an individual that sits on that board. The qualification is one, he has to be a township supervisor, and two, he has to have knowledge in the building trade. We're on our third member. The first one, who was appointed could not make the first meeting because it was a late appointment, he contacted us right after that and said because of the problems he had at the first few meetings, our first meeting that he attended, because he attended the first one by conference call to at least get in to listen to it, he said he wanted off. We appointed the second person, he had no better experience with what was happening on the RAC and said it was taking up a lot of time for an end result of nothing. The third person has been on actually has indicated to us that he would like to be reappointed, he thinks the RAC has improved but still, in our opinion, needs more improvement.
The long answer to your short questions is, we feel that the RAC as constituted needs improvement in order to do what it's supposed to do, be an advisory body to the Department and theoretically back to the legislature.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Expansion of the membership is not one of the things you would suggest?
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: We have no problem with the expansion of the membership. That's not an issue with us. We have more of a problem with the two-thirds vote, we have more problems with the concept that if the RAC doesn’t do something that we don't continue, it stops with what we have today. I will say back in the '90s when we worked on it, one of the provisions that was offered and it was defeated at the time was that theoretically we could stop in that moment of time. The time was 1996, the BOCA Code of 1996, and we would be living with that today. We opposed that. We want to be able to have improvements to what is out there under the building codes, but again, we want it within reason.
We want it for what is needed for Pennsylvania and not for what happens out in California.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Well, that is entirely, that is the original idea of the bill, because we were spread out, no improvements, this apparently made it a little better. If we could just fine tune it without doing away with everything that we've accomplished over the years, because as the Chairman said, we've made 8 changes to it but then we passed Act 106 because we were making so many changes to it that is why we made the Review Council. We've been trying to address all the problems as they come along, and I think we should take our time and do this the right way and not just rush to judgment again.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you for your testimony.
I am sorry, I missed Representative Grove.
REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Thank you.
I got an e-mail from a constituent in York County, he happens to be running for judge and I'm going to read this e-mail.
At risk of mixing my issues with yours, let me say to you that I have spoken with hundreds of people in the last 6-months and I hear two issues that the people of York County want addressed by the legislature.
Urgently, and I just heard one of these individuals this afternoon from what I have heard, you and your colleagues need to address it.
Number one, repeal of residential fire sprinklers, because people are tired of governmental mandates. I think it just goes to back, obviously, number two is property taxes from York County or anywhere you have that. If you could help us out with that. It goes back to people not wanting government to tell them what they do with their homes, in their houses, Scott hit it right on the head. The more stuff we put into homes the higher the costs, the more out pricing we're doing of individuals trying to afford a house. With the entire RAC, I had individuals saying why did you vote for fire sprinklers to be put in my house? Try to explain the RAC process and say to somebody, I didn't have a say in it whatsoever. There's nothing I could do to stop it or do anything with it. We don't have a say.
I don't like the fact that I can't advocate on behalf of my constituents, whatever special interest that may be, to help them out and help them afford the home of their dreams. It's an issue we're faced with. More mandates means more costs. At what point are we just annihilating the public to which they can't live in a comfortable existence anymore? It's an issue. Are there any local governments in Pennsylvania that currently have fire sprinklers?
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: Yes. As far as townships of the second class, we probably have that I know of about less than 10, but there may be more than that. I do know some.
REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: So there is a local opt-in?
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: Well, prior to the UCC, a provision we got in that said that if a municipality had more stringent regulations in effect at the time the Act finally took effect, which was 2004, those requirements would continue. We did have some that adopted, as I said, one down in the south east was in the '80s and there were others.
Since 2004, I know of two municipalities, the Borough of Chester and one in Adams
County that have implemented or gone through the process and have gotten residential sprinklers because of their particular circumstances, and they were able to. The one in Chester happens to be close by to residential areas and everybody thought that could be a potential hazard and it would be best for that.
There are those municipalities that have adopted it, we have had several municipalities, townships that have attempted to amend their ordinance to have sprinklers that have been shot down by the process. There are those who want it, I would say at this time the majority of municipalities if they had the option would not be running out to do it, it does depend on circumstances. As a matter of fact, we do have one also in the south east, again, prior to the UCC that has a requirement for sprinklers, but you have to meet certain criteria and they have it spelled out in the ordinance of if you meet this criteria, then you need this option. One of the criteria is the inability to get fire apparatus down to your structure. The way these developments were laid out, the driveways are long and switchback and you can't get a fire engine down those so if you meet that criteria, you're going to have to put in sprinklers to get at the safety issue. The rest of the township doesn't have them.
REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: So since the UCC took effect, there have been townships that have been able to adopt fire sprinklers in their townships?
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: There have been townships that applied to do it, I don't know of any townships since UCC.
REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: But there is a mechanism in place to do so?
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: And it is very difficult. That's the mechanism is basically you have to be unique. It's tough to be unique. Although we're different, there may be a small township, maybe a large urban area. In a lot of cases, you are very similar, although you're different, but you're not unique. REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: I think all my townships are very unique and special.
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: I could probably pay for that statement.
REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: I do appreciate it, and obviously it's a wonderful testimony to hear from all the stakeholders and special interests on this issue. I do appreciate that. I do have an issue with our IRC process to begin with, obviously I think the State
Government Committee will be looking at some of that, because obviously no matter what we do if those regulations do come to our joint Committees, both Committees can say no, the Governor can sign it, and we'll need a two-thirds vote of both chambers to overrule that. At the end of the day if the Governor supports it and wants it, he still gets it. It's an ongoing issue we have in our regulatory process that hopefully we can take under review and actually provide some legislative oversight. I do appreciate it, Elam.
ASSISTANT EXCUTIVE DIRECTOR HERR: Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond real quick to Mr. Boyd, Representative Boyd, we are not special interests. We are partners with the State in enforcing the laws of the Commonwealth.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well put.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Our next testifier is from the PA Association of Building Code Officials, Steve
Brandvold.
PRESIDENT BRANDVOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.
My name is Steve Brandvold, I am currently the Building Code Official for East Hempfield
Township in Lancaster County. I am the President of the Lancaster County Code Association, the Code Officials within the County, and I am also a Board member of the Pennsylvania
Association of Building Code Officials, commonly known as PABCO. I have been in the code enforcement business for over 30-years, been able to do it in three different States, so I have a wide variety of expertise in different styles and ways of enforcing codes. I've also sat on the National Code Change Committee for several years and have been on several of the Education Committees, so I have a good background into the code development process and how the codes come about.
Today, I am sitting here representing the views of PABCO and some of the comments that we have on this specific piece of legislation. To get the brevity and get right to the point, I thought I'd just go through and comment on some of the specific issues that we have with the bill and some recommendations that PABCO has for you to consider as you move legislation forward.
The first item that we would like to comment on is the RAC itself. We believe the RAC was developed as a technical review body and the way the RAC is set up is sound and functioning, but could probably use a little tweaking and some refinement as with any kind of legislative process that we have.
One of the items that we feel strongly about has to do with the timing of the RAC's involvement or the requirements that they are put forward to. Currently, it says that the decisions the RAC has to make have to be done by I believe it's May 1st of the year of publication of the codes, every triennial code. One of the problems with that is we believe it is too short of a time for this Committee to be able to review all of the code issues, the changes, the technical aspects that come up. Also, if you look at the specific language publication date, the building codes aren't just one volume, there are several volumes. The actual publication date may be a little different. By trying to use this proposed legislation would say within 15 months of publication date, what date is that? Which code book are you going to base that date upon? We feel it would be more appropriate to set a date specific. We would propose that you would consider having it state May 1st of the year after the year of publication. That gives the RAC a full year to be able to hold whatever public hearings that you deem necessary or appropriate and allows more time for the public input.
Currently, once that May 1st date is set, it says the Department of Labor and Industry must promulgate the regulations and adoption by December 31 of the year of publication. Again, that is too short. If we coincide that with May 1st of the year after the year of publication, than
L&I has until December 31st of the year after the year of publication, it allows us a little more breathing room in order to fully analyze what changes are appropriate, what aren't, what should be adopted, and get the appropriate process done to adopt those codes.
It also allows more time for the contractors, architects, building code officials, those involved in the actual design, construction, and enforcement of the code a full year or more to start getting the necessary training and information needed in order to fully enforce, construct, design, to that new adopted code. That would be one item that we feel very strongly about.
Currently, the proposal of House Bill 725 would allow the RAC to modify a code provision. PABCO feels that this really is not appropriate for the RAC to be doing. The RAC is not a code development body. They should be analyzing under the criteria they are mandated the appropriateness of these code changes. Code development really belongs at the national level of the code development through the ICC code change hearing process. That is where it is more appropriate. Trying to develop code on the floor as it's referred to in the RAC meetings we don't feel would be appropriate and would result in not very good code language.
House Bill 725 currently written would require the RAC to vote in or vote out every new or revised code provision and by a two-thirds majority vote. The previous panels have talked about the two-thirds problem, we agree. Currently nothing has been voted on in the RAC with a two-thirds count, so by putting this in it would basically stall everything up, where we think that the current super majority approval process serves its purpose.
Additionally, the RAC shouldn't be looking at voting in or out every specific code change or every portion of a code proposal. They should be looking only at those changes in the code.
Otherwise, they'll get bogged down into reviewing page by page of new code additions, and again, that would stall the process and defeat the purpose.
The last item, PABCO believes that the RAC should be required to include its report, its rationale for rejecting any code revision rather than just stating that it's rejected. They should be giving the rationale for it so that all parties can look at that, evaluate it, and go on from there.
We are not in favor of expanding the size of the RAC, either. we believe that the current
19 member composition of the RAC is large enough. If the Committee, legislature decides that the makeup of that Council needs to be changed or tweaked, whatever, that can be worked with, but expanding, just expanding the size of the RAC I think becomes a little more onerous and not very effective.
We're not necessarily opposed to a new fee to help finance the functions of the RAC, we would like you to take careful consideration of how much and where it comes from, but we do recognize, particularly if you're increasing the number of public hearings that you want to have for the RAC, the members of the RAC, that can get quite costly for, particularly our membership of code officials who don't get compensated for the expenses. It can get a little expensive as they're traveling across the State trying to attend all of these public hearings, they really should be compensated for the expenses that they incur. We would just ask that you carefully review how much and where it comes from, but we're not necessarily opposed to that concept. Then, the final point I wanted to bring is, the Department of Labor and Industry should not have the discretion to adopt some, all, or none of the recommendations made by the RAC. I believe turning, giving L&I that absolute power really will decrease the effectiveness of the RAC and the purpose of the RAC, and it becomes much more of a political type issue rather than truly reviewing these provisions and new code items, more of the technical and more specific criteria that are there.
Those are our comments, you have our written testimony that goes into a little bit more, but I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Brandvold for your testimony.
I would just have one question, I just want to make sure I understand this. You believe the RAC should analyze only and then reject or accept in totality so that if there was a small tweak that could be made that made it better for Pennsylvania, they shouldn't have that ability to do that?
PRESIDENT BRANDVOLD: Correct, because, first of all, I don’t believe that they would have the full input and time available to fully analyze that and if we get into that altruistic idea of that one little tweak and then someone else on the RAC feels, well, maybe this is a little bit more of a little tweak and so on, it can just snowball to a point that is hard to control.
We all have input at the National Code Development level. Anyone, anywhere can attend those hearings, provide input, testimony, and it is taken seriously. We strongly believe that is where the code development should take place.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.
Representative Keller.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Brandvold, I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Representative Grove.
REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: When the ICC is developed, is that more of a guidance from the international community for the subdivisions underneath it, big political entities down to the States, or is that you should do this no matter what?
PRESIDENT BRANDVOLD: No, the International Codes, building codes, are developed as the idea that they should be a minimum building code. It's the concept that truly should be what's about in its entirety. Like I mentioned, I've mentioned I've worked in three States under three different systems, and even I recognize that each State is unique. Almost everywhere the
States will then take those like we do through the RAC system, analyze the code changes and decide are those code changes appropriate for the State or not. The code itself is the basic document that really needs to be adopted, otherwise we'd be out writing our own codes and that's really not very feasible.
REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: How do the other States, you mentioned Pennsylvania is one of three, how do those other States do it? Do they have a similar RAC set up, do they just send it through the legislature?
PRESIDENT BRANDVOLD: The one that I'm most familiar with, and I don't like to name the State because it's not the most popular around, but is called the State Building Codes
Commission, that has a committee that does basically the same thing that the RAC does, it's just a different name. It's comprised of similar type, although not quite as expanded as what our RAC is, but it's a very similar process. They make recommendations and the State adopts it, and that is mandated throughout the State, where again, similar to ours, if a local jurisdiction wants something different, they have to make application proving that there is some type of geographical, topographical, or climatic reason that they are different from the rest of the State, that they should apply.
RESPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you for your testimony before us today.
Our next testifier is Karen Welsh, Legislative Director of Code Officials Alliance of
Pennsylvania.
DIRECTOR WELSH: Good morning. My name is Karen Welsh, and I am here to present the testimony in support of House Bill 725. I represent the Code Officials Alliance of
Pennsylvania.
Our diverse alliance, which includes building code officials, municipal officials, design professionals and building contractors, was created to provide a voice for those individuals in the building industry who share a mutual goal – to encourage the adoption of safe, affordable, and common-sense building codes that best meet the needs of the citizens of Pennsylvania.
A uniform construction code has been of great benefit to Pennsylvania and the vast majority of the entire construction industry supports its adoption. However, since the implementation of the UCC in 2004, Pennsylvania has enforced three different ICC codes, the
2003, '06, '09, with the 2012 codes coming shortly. The 2003 ICC codes saw some change and consolidation of the former BOCA and CABO codes, but the changes were generally absorbed as growing pains for a new system.
The 2006 codes involved more compliance and cost issues and the RAC was formed to address these emerging concerns. Due to the late publication of the 2009 codes and limited time frame for review, the RAC only had 6-weeks to make their recommendations, which, for a variety of reasons, was to make no recommendations for exclusions. Therefore, we are in essence jumping from the 2003 to the 2012 codes with the first opportunity for meaningful public input on the adoption of the ICC codes. The regulations are spiraling out of control and we need a common sense approach that restores our autonomy and protects our liberties. It is with this realization that HB 725 is so important and that the time for reform is now.
The ICC Code Development hearings are comprised of stakeholders often with financial, political, or self-serving agendas, and their success is aided by a flawed voting process. This is notably apparent in the adoption of sprinklers at the 2009 IRC code hearings and the overwhelming attendance of fire services representatives who were there for the two votes concerning sprinklers only.
What you may not yet have heard about were the 2012 International Energy Conservation
Code Hearings last October. The result of the hearings was to remove the energy provisions from the residential code, place all construction energy requirements into the commercially based
International Energy Conservation Code, the IECC, eliminate prescriptive based requirements and make an historic 30% jump in minimum efficiency levels from the 2006 energy code. This isn't just code creep, it's a code leap. This was accomplished by another lobbying group with a global environmental agenda which paid travel, lodging, and meal expenses for recruited governmental members to overwhelm the voting and go beyond the IECC Development
Committee's own recommendations. The voting was so irregular that the process has been appealed by several organizations and the ICC has scheduled a hearing on March 31st, 2011. The sprinkler hijacking was not a fluke. The ICC voting corruption continues and intensifies. The log home industry cannot survive this next energy code cycle.
House Bill 725 provides a fix to the most controversial provisions of the 2009 code, but mandatory residential sprinklers are undoubtedly the most publicized current issue. The divisiveness has been overwhelming. HB 725's requirements for consumer options and the addition of the 2012 IRC floor fire protection requirements are reasonable and cost effective alternatives to address the issue that lightweight floor construction burns faster. But these discussions, among other issues, could not even considered by the RAC under its current enacting legislation, and the dispute has snowballed and escalated. If the process is not reformed, and given the 2012 energy code provisions, this certainly will not be the last controversial issue.
The construction industry has been battered by the economy and by regulation. Onerous code mandates cause confusion, additional unnecessary costs and mistrust. It is impossible to think that a nationwide building code could fit the entire country. Further, the automatic adoption of a national code with no mechanism for amendment or alternatives cannot fit all of
Pennsylvania. Without provisions for review and modification, Pennsylvania unnecessarily subjects itself to the ICC's problems. It is time to reclaim our right and responsibility to self- govern and to protect the choices and options that are important to the residents and businesses in our State.
The proposed reforms of the RAC will create a positive, rather than a negative, review process for code adoption. Not many people can leave their jobs and fly around the country following the national ICC code development process. But, a lot of them can drive a few hours within the State for a regional RAC hearing where their input will be considered, especially as it relates to their specific circumstances in Pennsylvania. Several other States already have such procedures in place.
The need for affordable housing is tremendous as our neighborhoods continue to age.
Increased design, construction, and enforcement costs due to rapidly changing code cycles affect not only single family construction, but also multi-family affordable housing developments. These costs accumulate with the addition of each code cycle, eventually diminishing the amount of units that can or will be built, or increasing the rent or mortgage costs. Without investment in new housing construction, substandard housing and unsafe housing will remain unchanged because there is nowhere else to go. That is a real threat.
Building owners and management agencies know what works and what doesn't, and must maintain, support, and operate the buildings after they are completed. Realtors know that the consumer demands and the market value of a code compliant or an energy efficient building.
They are involved in the impacts of the international existing building code and the importance of a valid occupancy permit, especially when changes to occupancy are contemplated. Adding these voting members to the RAC will provide valuable input to the code evaluation process from important building industry partners who are currently unrepresented. These groups are already active partners and participants in the national code development process at ICC.
The Code Officials Alliance of Pennsylvania perceives additional benefits of the revised procedures that are consistent with our organization's mission statement, including, provide opportunities for the exchange of ideas, problems, and experiences that will lead to a better understanding and uniform enforcement practices of the PA UCC. Establish positive working relationships within the construction industry. Encourage input and participation from a broad based range of groups and individuals. Educate the public regarding the benefits and advantages of the PA UCC and safe construction practices. Educate all citizens concerning the development, implementation, and enforcement of the PA UCC, and improving efficiency in the administration of codes and regulations by State and local agencies, boards, committees, and individuals.
The non-partisan RAC must be given ample time and resources to ensure that the adopted code provisions relate to the needs and concerns of Pennsylvania. Then we can actually obtain a Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code instead of just an ICC code. The enhanced public hearing forums and RAC Board Member additions proposed in HB 725 will give a voice not only to a broader range of invested building industry professionals, but also to the people of
Pennsylvania, who are the recipients of and participants in the code's safety, financial, and lifestyle impacts.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you for your testimony.
I would recognize Chairman Keller for questions.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I only have one question. Ms. Welsh, I've been around for a little while, around the
Capital. I've known a lot of Alliances. The Code Officials Alliance of Pennsylvania, it's new to me. Could you give me what your organization is, how long you've been around, and who comprises your organization?
DIRECTOR WELSH: We are very new. We just had our first board meeting in
November of last year. We are still developing membership, we have a Web site we've applied for non-profit status, which to be honest, I'm not sure if that's complete, if that process has been completed. We are represented by code officials, builders, contractors, architects, municipal officials, primarily located in the western portion of the State.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Well, I just want to be very careful. You're up here, you're very new, you're not even sure if you're a 501(c)(3) completed yet, you know very little and you're throwing words around like corruption and things like that. I suggest you be careful in your infancy. I want to make sure you're just not an offshoot of the Pennsylvania Builders Association and where they get another bite at the apple here for testifying. I'll ask Mr. Wise that when he gets here. I think you have to be very careful of the things you say when you're testifying.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.
Seeing no other questions, thank you for your testimony.
Our next person is Aus Marburger, Fire Protection Industries, on behalf of the PA Fire and Emergency Services Institute.
I apologize if I mispronounced your name.
MR. MARBURGER: You did very well.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thanks for this opportunity. I was asked to appear here on behalf of the Pennsylvania Fire and Emergency Services Institute. I am not a volunteer fireperson, but have been involved in the discussions with the RAC and I've been on the RAC since its initial appointment to the first passage, and on that basis they felt that I could represent their positions.
The written testimony that I have submitted was reviewed by them so I feel it represents them appropriately. Since you have it, I am not going to attempt to read through that. I will tell you a little bit more about myself.
I am the President of Fire Protection Industries, it is predominantly a fire sprinkler contractor, I'll put that up front. I have a degree in Architectural Engineering and have been involved in the construction industry for 40-years. I have sat on code development committees,
I've been on the Board of the Engineering Alumni Association for Penn State. I pretty much get construction and I do it in multiple trades. I've also worked HVAC, plumbing, and some other trades as well.
I'm here to speak, really, against the bill and from two perspectives. One of it is the Act 45 in and of itself. I think we believe that Act 45 is an incredible accomplishment because it's essentially pure. It's got some great values. It's been recognized nationally code put together by professionals based predominantly on life and safety and health and it encourages standardization and it has a process for constant renewal and updating, and in essence and therefore is not really a political statement or a political document.
The RAC was created to provide a level of redress to the State. A very interesting concept, because it was only provided to do a couple of things. One of them, really was it could only recommend deletions. They couldn't modify, it couldn't add, they couldn't rewrite, couldn't evaluate, and it was also only based on issues raised either by the legislature or anyone within the
Commonwealth who has specific concerns with respect to an issue. It was to address that issue with new provisions or modified provisions. It had a very focused level of responsibility.
We talk about what happened with 2009. The number one issue in the time frame of 2009 was late appointments to the RAC. It wasn't what was set up within the legislation, it was the fact that the RAC wasn't really in a position to get started until very late in the process. It still had a number of meetings scheduled, for which there was public announcement, it was sunshined, open meetings requirements, two of the meetings were canceled because of the fact that there was no agenda provided for those particular meetings because every issue that had been raised to the Committee to address was being addressed and had the time frame to address it.
The biggest issue, and it's what drives a lot of things, is the sprinkler related issue. Quite honestly, I was supportive of it, I was surprised that it passed. Initially it would not have passed, but based on several hours of testimony, including a number of groups including some of the people who were here today, including people from the National Association of Homebuilders coming out of D.C., the group decided in the end based on that testimony, it swayed the group. It had the economic considerations, it had trade off considerations, and I'm sure if people had the opportunity to read the transcripts of those hearings across the board, it would affect their feelings about that outcome.
What I'm here to say, and I'm not here to represent the RAC, I didn't ask for that permission, I don't have that authority, is that that group I think is relatively proud, and I think it's fair to say that it truly was a deliberative process, it was an open process with significant debate, and the outcome was if I remember correctly, was essentially about 10-9. It just got to that threshold to maintain the sprinkler provision. It maintained it, but it was not for any other reason. It wasn't time, there were meetings canceled where debate had been extended, it was simply the conclusion based on the deliberative process with significant testimony. A little bit of history.
In essence, what I'm really saying is it's not broken, and fixing it will break it. That's the concern with this particular bill. It starts with, the compliance date for regulatory revision is not possible. The cumulative time frame for what the RAC is supposed to do and review, the reporting requirements, the drafting of regulations, the legislative committee oversight, the public comment period and Independent Regulatory Review Commission adds at a minimum a year, and that is the most optimistic perspective of anybody who looks at the process.
When you talk about the year of issue, they typically issue in May for 2012, so there is a six month lag to get people to get up to speed. So, if the Commission starts immediately and actually has about a year to make its recommendations and then still provides about seven months for the regs to be developed by the Department and for it to go through the RAC and the other requirements. That very well be a push on the backside, particularly for compliance issues and for training and education, and I think generally some extension of that time would really make some sense. It's not in an overall rush in the review process.
It's important to realize that the RAC is all volunteers. The current charge is to address issues raised by anyone who has a concern with revisions or changes and the fact that it might not be right for Pennsylvania. The RAC will then consider that and conduct hearings associated with it. HB 725 requires addressing all changes in a written report with justification for the findings. This is to redo the whole code adoption process. The volume of work is unnecessary and is absolutely an unrealistic burden, and the default will be no adoptions at all. I think some other people made that same comment. That's the net result and the outcome of this situation.
There are very few people, unless they are being paid to do this, that could ever generate the volunteer time to even begin to address that charge. It's just completely unrealistic.
The RAC composition is to be expanded by four members. They not a comparable technical standing, and three are closely aligned with residential builders. This greatly expands the residential bias in the existing composition to a point of imbalance or control. I'm not the only one who shares those thoughts, and one of the things that I would like to say or challenge this Committee is the last meeting, the first one 725 was introduced, I believe the correct vote was 11-4 not to support this bill, but what is really important is the transcript. The discussion from many other people who are not in this room and were really very deliberate concepts as to specific concerns of what this bill might do to the process.
The last thing is the two-thirds issue. Two-thirds out of this group, and one of the other comments I think I heard was about providing more support to decisions, the time we meet and the discussion, in order to get a majority vote to a report that will be put in the editorial comment and subjective comment is also reasonably almost impossible. I can understand the value of wanting more information, but it's also a process of which trying to produce that in a way to communicate in essence will get you to no report at all.
It may be well-intended in a lot of ways, and I can certainly appreciate it, but if one sits in the process and looks at the process, we're talking about something here that really does not have the opportunity to contribute.
I think the overall code process is also one of continuous change, these are some personal comments I'll throw out in the end here, and that is it improves. Some of the complaints about what's in the ICC are already being addressed; complaints about their adoption process are being addressed. I think everybody wants to see it improve. Can the RAC process improve? I think the
RAC is going to work out extremely well but needs the opportunity to operate. The last process was an accelerated period of time with tremendous amount of information, and still I think it's met its goals and it produced a report. There are some portions in it that people would like to discuss. I'd be glad to discuss opt-in or opt-out or anything else we could relate to, but I think what I've tried to conclude, and the report hopefully gives more detail, because the process is not broken, it is deliberative, it is accessible, log homes might be another perfect example. The groups decided to support the log home issue. They came to the group and said, we have a bunch of five and a half inch logs in inventory, we have 2-years of them, meeting the energy requirement is going to be difficult with our inventory, they made a presentation, the group recommended that there be a legislative intervention on their behalf with respect to the code.
This group is accessible, it's not code Nazis, with respect from something that comes down from a third party, it just hasn't been given the opportunity to operate.
This takes the process and puts it in a situation to which there will be no report or it will be a directed report by a very local and strong minority.
I'll be glad to take your questions. CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you for your testimony.
I would start with one question, and you made an interesting point about the late start for the 2009 review. The 2012 is coming up. I would expect, therefore, we won't be getting a late start, so time constraints won't be so severe. You may have heard the testifier for PABCO, PA
Association of Building Code Officials, suggest that maybe we change this date so that basically we delay one-year adoption anyway. Would that give enough time for the review process that is set forth in House Bill 725?
MR. MARBURGER: What I heard about the delay process, in part, was also training and getting preparation for enforcement. The current process that is the one thing that is really missing in that process. First of all, to answer your question about starting, the newer additions are about to be published, they are due within the next month or two, and the RAC at its last meeting had decided to basically schedule a meeting in June and July to start that process this year, which is several months in advance of the process that led to the 2009 adoption. The RAC is cognizant of the idea of time and greater access and the opportunity to be more deliberate.
I'll go back to the idea of looking at the entire code. The challenge through this bill is you have to look at every revision, and you're going to redo what code officials have done, even though no stakeholders in the State of Pennsylvania has raised the question, and you're going to put a written report on the backside of that to its applicability, including economical evaluation.
How difficult is it to put a finding of fact on economic evaluation on many things we look at?
That report will be so difficult to write, I don't think the 15-months would even be close, I think it would be 3-years if you ever got lucky to getting that report done.
These are my personal sentiments at that point, but knowing that these are architects and engineers and building code officials and senior people within the industries across the board that are very deliberative by nature, very difficult to accomplish that. I think focusing on the exception of what is new is another place where I think Bill 106, which created the RAC, got it right. I think that system and that process is also, again, very accessible. Anybody who wanted to talk, anybody who wanted to give testimony, the transcripts to that were all essentially produced.
There is, certainly, the opportunity to impact that process and the idea of changing it is to better predict its outcome, not necessarily the value of its process.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Keller.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marburger, if I heard you correctly, the RAC has already taken a look at House Bill
725?
MR. MARBURGER: Yes, it has.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: We don't have any documentation on that, could you provide that, give it to the Chairman so he could provide it to the Committee?
MR. MARBURGER: I would be glad to do that, but the Chairman of RAC is here, I've seen the draft of the letter to the General Assembly transmitting that information, so I think it's on the way.
CHAIRMAN OF RAC: It should have been in your e-mail last week.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: I have a little difficulty with that electronic mail.
As a member of the RAC, do you feel that there were any standards not given adequate time and discussion in their hearings?
MR. MARBURGER: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: This is, again, rhetorical, you feel that the system that is in place isn't working, we should give it some more time to play out and we can make a few little tweaks here and there, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
MR. MARBURGER: I think it's a good summary. The RAC also has its own legislative subcommittee, with the idea of making recommendations to approve its own process. That report has not been produced as of yet, but I think you'll find those to be very constructive, such as 3- year terms staggering on a one-third basis to provide for historical context within that group. The group itself understands its charge and is looking for how it can basically improve its own process. Again, when I point to the transcript, because again, I did not ask permission from the
RAC to speak on its behalf, but there were comments within the discussion of 725 in the transcript that I think would be tremendous value to this Committee.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: That's what, I'll ask if you could provide to the Chairman of this
Committee that transcript, because I think it's valuable information in there that we should have when we're discussing this bill.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Representative Boyd.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The prior testifier, I didn't get a chance to ask any questions, but made some interesting observations about the ICC process, that adoptive process. We have two commissions, we have the ICC, which updates the building code, the International Construction Code, every 3-years.
Our law automatically adopts those changes. The RAC, which is a Pennsylvania only entity, is charged, was created legislatively and is charged with reviewing those, along with some other responsibility, but reviewing those changes and make limited recommendations as to whether they should or shouldn't be included in the update for the UCC. Do I have that process accurate?
MR. MARBURGER: Other than, currently the Department is obligated to not include provisions within the new code or a revised code that the RAC does not support. The RAC has been given authority under 106 to the amendment to Act 45 to exercise, to be the defining body on what is excluded.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: Okay. So, members of the ICC that get to vote on that new code, who are they? There were allegations made that there were individuals that voted to make these ICC changes only for two votes, and we heard anecdotal, legendary analysis of that process. Who is the ICC and can you just elaborate a little bit on that process for me?
MR. MARBURGER: I am not an ICC expert. I know that the ICC is a group that was founded through the merger of the three primary code bodies that wrote codes on a national basis. So they merged, and that was the BOCA, the Uniform Building Code and the Southern
Building Code. They were the three predominant organizations, so they merged into one. I think they are predominantly, from a voting perspective, building code officials, but I am not an expert on the ICC.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: Thank you. I appreciate that. So, what ends up happening is this group of code officials nationally or internationally, makes recommendations that automatically become code for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Basically, that's the fact.
That's what happens.
MR. MARBURGER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: Those people are not accountable to the Pennsylvania population, the Pennsylvania voters in any sense of the word. The RAC was created to try and bring some accountability to the fact that we were, in essence, the way I guess it's Act 45 is operating, we're in essence giving our authority to create legislation over to this organization, that ultimately that's what becomes law here in Pennsylvania. The RAC was created to try and get some sort of a Pennsylvania oversight of that process. Would you agree with that analysis?
MR. MARBURGER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: Okay. The members of the RAC, how many of them are elected officials?
MR. MARBURGER: I don't know, but it's a small number.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: Here's the dilemma for a guy like myself. When people are upset about this code, they aren't made at the RAC and they're not mad at the ICC, they're mad at me. But, I don't get to vote on it. I'm basically, I have given my legislative oversight to an advisory body.
Representative Oberlander's bill, whether it's the final answer or not, is trying to address an issue, and the issue is, I am responsible for making law. Three branches of government, basic civics, it's my job. Sixty thousand people elect me and send me here and I face them every 2- years, and I'm accountable for the laws that I pass. I put up ugly votes and they'll not send me back here. What we've done with this Act 45 is we've really sort of given that responsibility and that authority to a non-elected, non-accountable advisory body. We're the ones that are dealing with the consequences of that and that creates a problem.
This might not be the absolute fix, and there's a lot of good testimony, and the
Representative is taking notes even as we speak, or she's texting while driving, I'm not sure which it is. No, but, taking input as to how to make that fix, but there's this fundamental problem that I have that I'm accountable, and I'm accountable for decisions that are being made that I'm not the one making them. We have to fix that. We have to come up with some sort of a mechanism, in my opinion, to fix that. The fact that these guys aren't elected, at least a couple of them I guess are elected officials, if I heard you right, the RAC vote on whether to pull the sprinkler mandate out was a 10-9 vote?
MR. MARBURGER: I think so.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: Basically, in some senses, one person, agree? One person, unelected, appointed, made a decision that affected arguably tens of thousands of lives across the
Commonwealth.
MR. MARBURGER: Can I disagree with that conclusion?
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: Yes, absolutely.
MR. MARBERGER: First of all, Act 45 because it was written in 1999, went into full in
2004. The only mandate that the General Assembly has ever put out there is to get out of the code writing business, which was probably the best thing it did. It said, we're not experts in all these disciplines from structure, to architecture, to energy, to plumbing, to electrical, in all those things, so we're going to start with a minimum requirement, and that minimum requirement is fought for hugely. That is multiple committees, tons of people, again, I'm not an expert in the process, but what emerges out there as a minimum standard is an incredibly fought for document because sessions like this, various States have the same basic concern. It evolves as a minimum standard.
It's not the RAC that determines what's in there or the RAC making the decisions. But, the RAC was asked to do when challenged by anyone from the General Assembly or the public or whatever, is something, does this really make sense as a minimum standard? To address that, and if it doesn't agree that that's in the best interest of Pennsylvania and the best interest does include economic considerations as well as safety, most of the things that they're concerned with, that it is obligated to make a determination. Talk about fought over, that was also fought over.
There is a lot of testimony associated with it. There are strong feelings on every side of the issue.
The safety proportion, what is a life worth? To what degree does it really affect the cost of a house? Fifty-percent of the cost of a house is construction cost, the rest is other. The same house on both sides of the street can vary by $30,000 depending on what school district you're in.
The idea that a basic construction cost of a safety feature drives the financial value of that house is very debatable in and of itself.
All of these discussions were pursued at great length and what I would say on behalf of the RAC that I am incredibly proud of that organization, and I didn't know these people ahead of time, was it was very deliberative, and people said that their votes had changed based on significant testimony. Now, all they did was mandate something.
If, in the end, and there's always some aspect of improving the process. I think, personally, the adoption time, once you adopt it, by the time you get it into code, have a chance to educate your code enforcement people, some additional time frame from there which I think
PABCO is one of the primary concerns there, has some validity. I think it makes some sense. I think there's a lot of room for basic process.
What House Bill 725 does is it amends the fundamental process down to the point where it won't be functional. It may be well intended, and I relate to that and I'm here to support that, I don't say that it's not well intended, but in and of itself the structural changes on how the committee is established, what the majority is going to look like and who the membership becomes, will be dysfunctional in the spirit of Act 45 when you read the Preamble. That's my personal opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYD: And maybe there is some conversation about the Preamble of Act 45 and what Act 45's intention was, but I'm still going to go back to the point that I am accountable for law that is being enacted by an ICC, an unelected group of people who I have no sphere and my 60,000 have no sphere over, and any changes to that drop down to the RAC, which again, there is no elective oversight with that. The accountability that comes to me, I have no responsibility for. I'll use an analogy, I was the Chairman of a planning commission for a township. My good friend Elam Herr can relate to this. We're a recommending body. We can recommend anything, but the vote to actually approve or disapprove a land development plan, etc., is made by the supervisors. I will tell you it's a lot easier to be a planning commission member than it is to be a supervisor, because the buck stops with the person that puts up the vote.
Making recommendations is easy. Putting up votes is harder. What I'm saying is that right now, in my opinion, the way this process is flowing through there is no accountability of this building code to the elected people that have to live under it. I don't believe that that is the proper function of what our representative form of government was designed to do.
We are elected to make laws. We have to do that. Frankly, why don't we give over, my good friend sitting beside me says, why don't you start giving over the right to enact taxes to some advisory board? That would be a lot easier for us, we wouldn't have to put up those votes.
I'll even go you one better. How about if we make over to an advisory board that they would come up with what to pay legislators. You see what I'm trying to say? We have tough issues, here.
MR. MARBURGER: First of all, I not only see what you're trying to say, I respect what you're saying. But, I would also say that the responsible thing to do in a representative form of government is sometimes accept the fact that a representative body is beneficial. Personally, sir, I don't want you designing the structure of my home. And I don't mean that as a personal attack, I think regrettably we're involved in a situation that is incredibly challenging because it's incredibly complex. All of these different disciplines, they do the best they know how to do in coming up with a minimum requirement and compromise over a period of time that is a huge compromise. If something goes in there, there's a group of people who don't think it's strong enough, a couple people think it's over the top, and from one addition to the other, both are somewhat right. There is a time for which through education, through knowledge, and through experience, that these people realize that there's a way to do it better or cost-effectively or more efficiently. But, there's a process for that.
All that I’m saying, and I hope you didn't take that personally, because I do respect the fact that there is no elected responsibility within this group, but I think it fully understands that it is a representative group and they're there to use their expertise to the best of their ability to meet the commitment of Act 45, which is saying we're going to have minimum standards for the safety of our people.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: I would recognize Representative Gillen.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your expert testimony, Mr. Marburger. With regard to PFESI, just in the spirit of inquiry and learning a little bit more about the organization, how long has it been in existence and how long have you been with the organization?
MR. MARBURGER: I'm personally not with the organization. It's been in existence, I don't know the date of its founding, but I'm guessing in the area of 15-years of so.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: With regard to the composition of the executive board, how would you define that composition by vocation?
MR. MARBURGER: Fire service, career fire service personnel. REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Having perused the list of the board members very briefly, could we characterize some of those that are on the board as selling fire apparatus or services?
MR. MARBURGER: I personally haven't looked at it recently, but I accept that.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Just went to the Web site just a few moments ago, it seems to be heavy with people that are marketing services and equipment. No problem with that, just wanted the context.
You are President of Fire Protection Industries as well—
MR. MARBURGER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: and I commend you for your entrepreneurial spirit. I understand you have an office even in our own County of Berks. How would you characterize your primary product line or services that you market through that particular entrepreneurial effort?
MR. MARBURGER: We cover a variety of safety products, but in that sense, it is install, inspect, and maintain fire sprinkler systems and we do the same with fire alarm and security systems.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLEN: Thank you very much for you testimony, thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Follow-up question from Representative Keller.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to my good friend, Representative Boyd. We do pass laws. We did pass a law, Act
106 which created the RAC, which was trying to make Act 45 better. We passed a law that was voted in the House unanimously, and passed in the Senate unanimously. So, I believe we are staying with our Constitutional rights, we are passing laws, making it better for the health, wealth, and safety of the people of Pennsylvania. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you for your testimony.
MR. MARBURGER: Thank you, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.
Next up is Dan Wise, PA Builders Association.
MR. WISE: Good morning Chairman Miller, Chairman Keller, and the rest of the members of the Labor and Industry Committee. My name is Dan Wise, and I am a residential builder and remodeler operating in the State College area for over 25-years. I am the owner of
Wise Construction, Immediate past President of the Builders Association of Central
Pennsylvania, and I Chair the Pennsylvania Builders Association Uniform Construction Task
Force.
I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to comment on issues regarding
House Bill 725, and on behalf of PBA, we appreciate your consideration of this testimony.
Let me first begin by providing some background. PBA has long championed any issue that promoted safe, affordable housing for all Pennsylvanians. Within the past 10-15 years, we've seen the formation of local and State groups dedicated to the increased awareness of affordable housing. We certainly welcome their involvement, as this is a critical issue that requires long- term solutions. However, prior to these groups appearing on the scene, the Pennsylvania Builders was the only organized voice for the housing consumer.
As part of this advocacy, PBA and others have worked to champion the need for a uniform State-wide building code. We remain committed to this principle, and thanks to the requirements of the Uniform Construction Code in Pennsylvania, new homes are of an overall higher quality, are more energy efficient, and safer than homes in previous generations.
In an effort to see that code become more effective, PBA also participated in the work group that developed Act 106 that did create the RAC. However, since the creation of the RAC, issues have surfaced in the implementation that we feel is critical that the process be reformed and in the best interest of all Pennsylvanians.
The code process should be deliberative, and not only ensure quality home construction, but also affordability for municipalities, builders, and new home consumers affected by the code.
I'd like to highlight some of our concerns with the existing process and why we believe the process is flawed. We favor the ability for the RAC to make changes to existing codes as the ability to see is fit, and we'll get into one big example a little bit later. We favor the two-thirds majority. Currently there is a super majority that requires 10 votes. One of the problems with that super majority is that there are 5 votes that are held by code officials, members of PABCO, who in their first bylaw states that they generally oppose any changes to State and local codes. I may not have the exact verbiage, but basically it says they oppose anything that changes the ICC.
We feel that the RAC should be spending more time considering the economic impact and the cost of compliance. We feel strongly that the RAC has failed to consider economic impact of the 2009 code changes.
At the most recent meeting of the RAC held earlier this month, when you get those transcripts you'll hear this also, one member of the council stated the exact opposite, making a statement that cost was not a factor the RAC was to consider. The language found in House Bill
725 will change this "may" provision to a "shall" provision so all future code changes will be examined with economic impact as a factor in the adoption process.
The ICC code development process produces a new code on a 3-year cycle. We recognize that new materials and building techniques will produces changes to the code that are beneficial and should be enacted. However, the 3-year cycle and the process used to develop the code has resulted in a building code that adds multiple layers of code changes, adding complexity and cost at a pace that builders and code officials find difficult to keep up with.
In the 2009 code, there were 150 changes to the International Residential Code and almost 1,000 changes to the entire body of codes. Now, if you do the math, that is the equivalent of almost one code change per day. Many of these changes add significant and unnecessary costs to new home construction and I will give you a couple of examples of those.
The dryer duct issue that was brought up in Elam's testimony. There were several code changes relating to dryer ducts. The three code changes contained contradictory language and in a least one case was less than the manufacturers' specification. Now, at first blush, one might look at the change and say, well, it saves ten feet of dryer duct, so it can't increase the cost of construction. But, this is an excellent example of how a code change can have an impact that is not obvious until closer examination. Eliminating that ten feet of dryer duct has an impact on the home design, and creative design can actually reduce the square footage of the home, reducing the overall footprint of the home can provide significant savings.
Relative to the energy code, prior to the 2009 code, a home buyer was able to offset the thermal envelope requirements of a new home with higher efficiency HVAC and water heating equipment.
Significant improvements in the efficiency of HVAC and water heating equipment have been made in recent years, and eliminating this provision does nothing but discourage the development of new equipment and technologies. Eliminating the ability to recognize the value of these technologies in the market place will prove detrimental to the citizens of the Commonwealth.
As oil rises to over $100 a barrel and many Pennsylvanians cannot afford to heat their homes, how can we justify a code change that would discourage the development of a more efficient and alternate equipment that we use to heat and cool our homes on a free market base?
On supply and demand?
An important side benefit of the new more efficient equipment is the improved indoor air quality. We are working harder to make our homes tighter, air sealing our homes, so a healthier home with improved air quality has become a very important factor when building a new home.
The Uniform Construction Code and Review and Advisory Council was created with the specific mission to look at proposed code changes and recommend approval or disapproval for inclusion into the PA UCC. PBA feels strongly that the RAC should carefully evaluate the benefits versus the costs and practicality. Changes should strike an appropriate balance between the goal and its costs. It should also take into consideration when current regulations are sufficient.
In addition to considering cost and economic impact, the overall process should be more thoughtful and comprehensive, rather than the hurried through process that has been detailed earlier. In the review of the 2009 codes, PBA proposed that only 20 of the almost 1,000 changes be deleted. All of these proposed code changes were disapproved by the RAC. Technically, there was that was approved. When our request to bring the dryer duct language, to make that uniform, however, when it was pointed out by L&I staff that that one change that was approved would require additional time to promulgate the regulations and extend the adoption of the code beyond the December 31 deadline, the RAC promptly reversed the decision and denied the request.
Making any decision based on governmental convenience, particularly one that could reduce the cost of a home by $1,000 or more is inexcusable, and it provides clear evidence that the process needs to be refined.
Another major issue that should be taken into consideration is whether or not the specific code provisions are right for Pennsylvania. The ICC addresses worldwide conditions, so clearly there are occasions when a code provision simply is not right for Pennsylvania, and should be excluded from the Uniform Construction Code. Many other States take time to deliberate as to which provisions are the right fit for their needs, and here are a few examples.
The 2006 code provided a requirement for anchor bolts that Rich DeYoung talked about.
The bolts used to secure the floor system of a home to the foundation, these anchor bolt spacing was excessive, it added significant cost to a home, and while there was unanimous consent among builders, code officials, architects, and engineers that this requirement had no place in
Pennsylvania UCC, it took an act of the legislature to remove this provision and return the original code language that's has continued to work for years in Pennsylvania without issue.
The 2009 IRC contained a major change to the wind bracing requirements. This change was not derived from any identified or substantiated problem in the field by Pennsylvania builders or code officials. Pennsylvania does not have the high wind or seismic concerns that other areas of the country have to deal with where this code change might have been more applicable.
Without any indicated problem to be corrected by the code change, we feel it is simply another layer of design requirement that will do little more for the home owner than increase the cost. The code change increases the length of this section of the code from six pages to 28 pages, and will not make Pennsylvania homes safer or more durable.
The IRC also contained a requirement for attaching a deck to the house. As with the wind bracing requirements, these attachment requirements were based on seismic conditions that simply do not exist in Pennsylvania. These requirements added unnecessary costs to a new home.
And, one additional note, this code change also promoted propriety product in their drawings, it was only available through one company.
Looking again at the energy code provision that I mentioned earlier, there was another significant impact of this change that will have far more reaching effects. The elimination of the high efficiency HVAC equipment trade-off could seriously damage the log home industry and jeopardize hundreds of existing jobs.
While there is an ICC standard for log wall construction, with a five inch thick wall being the generally accepted industry standard in Pennsylvania, the 2009 energy code fails to recognize this standard. To effectively meet the new code, Pennsylvania log home builders would be required to build a fourteen inch thick log wall. This requirement would have a substantial impact on Pennsylvania's log home manufacturers to provide an affordable package.
Surveys tracked since 1986 show that Pennsylvania has consistently ranked number one in terms of the volume of log home sales. It is ranked number one in the terms of builder and log home representatives, and log homes are an important part of the Pennsylvania economy generating over $500 million in revenue annually.
While the log home industry had a proposed simple two line change to the 2009 code that would have solved this problem, the way the current RAC is set-up did not permit a proactive approach to fix a huge problem.
In closing, I would simply like to point out that Pennsylvania and California are the only two States that currently automatically adopt the I codes. Most other States have mechanisms in place very similar to those detailed in House Bill 725. They not only vote-in code rather than adopt it all or vote-out provisions as the current RAC process is set up, but they also take more time between cycles for review and adoption. I believe the amendment of the Uniform
Construction Code by House Bill 725 will bring us much closer to the original intent of Act 45, a truly Statewide building code built for Pennsylvania.
Thank you for hearing our testimony.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Wise, and I would turn to
Chairman Keller for comments and questions.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wise, staying on the theme of full disclosure that Representative Gillen is advocating here today, does your organization have any affiliation or a connection to the Code Officials
Alliance of Pennsylvania?
MR. WISE: We have no official affiliation. Obviously we know their building code inspectors, I've worked with many of them over the years. We know who they are, we like to hear somebody that supports our position, but there is no affiliation between the Pennsylvania
Builders Association.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: No financial, no helping get started, no association whatsoever?
MR. WISE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you.
I was here when we did the Uniform Construction Code, and if I remember correctly, and
I do remember correctly, the Pennsylvania Builders Association was the driving force behind getting the Uniform Construction Code adopted in Pennsylvania.
MR. WISE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: And then we refined it because we didn't want to come back and make eight amendments to the bill, as the Chairman has pointed out, then we did Act 106.
Pennsylvania Builders Association was in full support of Act 106 which created the RAC.
MR. WISE: Yes, that is in my testimony.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Yes. I'm just saying, I think we're back to full circle, because now we're back, the Pennsylvania Builders Association is back trying to get where we were originally, all of the codes through legislation. I just think we just came full circle. You're here, then you answered my question. I want to know, why are we in Bill 725 talking about bracing?
You just answered that question for me. We're back trying to do what you originally told us not to do, do codes through legislation. I think we've come full circle, here.
I also see in your testimony, which I do agree with, that there is clear evidence that the process needs to be refined. Not just turned on its head. You've heard testimony from every other, almost every other testifier that the two-thirds vote would absolutely paralyze this process and we would be back to where we were originally when you guys came in and I think correctly, to make us do the Uniform Construction Code, now we're going to be back to being paralyzed.
There will be no adjustments in the code and we'll be back to doing any code adjustment through legislation. If you could walk me through that, I don't understand it. I think we've come full circle.
MR. WISE: Well, first of all, let me disagree with you on one point regarding the wind bracing. We're only here because we feel the RAC did not do their job correctly.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Do you have members on the RAC?
MR. WISE: Of course we have members on the RAC.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: And I've asked everybody else who testified, if you have members on the RAC and you go to your members and every one of them said that the process seems to work when they take their problems to their members on the RAC. It seems to be addressed.
MR. WISE: Well, and that goes to the cost of the code. As I stated in my testimony, none of the provisions that were disallowed addressed costs at all.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: That's why we have these hearings, because I've heard other testifiers saying that they take economics into consideration when the RAC is considering these things. I heard from members of the RAC say that.
MR. WISE: Well, that's I guess there's degrees of reasonableness that we agree to disagree. Taking consideration into a cost is not some anecdotal story about a deck falling off in
New Jersey versus what is happening here in Pennsylvania as it is with the deck ledger attachment. If we had the ability to tweak the wind bracing, I said it has no impact on
Pennsylvania builders, it has no impact on Pennsylvania consumers, so that should be, it was just pushed right through.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: I believe they had that same argument in Japan, but I'm not—
This is back to being about safety. I just don't want to go full circle as in my time in this legislature where we did everything through legislation, which everybody agreed was wrong, we almost unanimously passed all of these bills, and now we're back full circle legislating codes. I think we have opportunities here, we may be able to tweak it, I think a lot of the testifiers are saying they agree that there should be some changes made, but I don't think we should just go back to where we were originally legislating build codes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WISE: Let me, we're not suggesting that we go back to legislating building codes.
We're suggesting a process in the RAC that we feel will be comprehensive, will develop a Statewide code, and eliminate the need for you to—
CHAIRMAN KELLER: One of the problems that you have addressed of the RAC and you didn't get your way, from what I understand, is now being addressed in this legislation, the bracing. We are back legislating. We are back legislating building codes, which you asked us to get out of years ago.
MR. WISE: I won't argue with that point. But, let's look at one other thing, though, that's important. We also looked ahead and brought in a provision of the 2012 code being proactive that has to do with the light weight construction and this is something that a streamlined RAC that had the ability could do. If it's a good code, why do we have to wait 3-years? If it's something that works and something that is beneficial, why do we need to wait?
CHAIRMAN KELLER: I think the Chairman has spoken to that provision. That's why we're here, to try to find out where the problems are and then correct them. But, I don't think that we should go back to where you said we shouldn't have been years ago.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: I don't believe that's the intent of what we're trying to do, but that's the importance of this hearing, to bring out all the various issues and address the legislation.
Representative Murphy?
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a follow-up to Chairman Keller's question, Mr. Wise. If the objective is to make changes and not wait such a long period of time to kind of implement somewhat obvious code changes, wouldn't a two-thirds vote kind of exacerbate the problem instead of trying to alleviate that problem in a quicker manner? MR. WISE: I would suggest not, and let me say that—
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Obviously it's more difficult to get two-thirds.
MR. WISE: Yes, but something, you don't take this lightly. You don't want to change it on a whim. It's not to get codes back quicker, it's to be more deliberative and to be able to react to situations that impact. Not necessarily to get it done quicker.
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: And I didn't necessarily mean to get it done quicker, but I'm just thinking out loud and you could just give me your opinion. By adding more people to the council and requiring two-thirds vote on each recommendation, it would seem to me that it would be likely that there would be fewer changes.
MR. WISE: I really don't—
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: I guess that's really not for you to comment on, that's just an observation and I don't want to put you on the spot because that's not for you to say.
That's the way that I look at it, and I think that may lead to fewer changes being made and even those that may be in the public, in favor of public safety, because it seems like there's and we've talked about it all morning, special interest, special interest. When you have special interests on both sides to get two-thirds is rather difficult.
That's just an observation, and I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Wise.
Our last presenter is Frank Thompson, Chairman of the Council, UCC Review and
Advisory Council. Mr. Thompson, you may proceed when you're ready. Sorry we kept you waiting so long.
CHAIRMAN THOMPSON: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to testify on how the current ICC code adopt process in Pennsylvania can be improved.
My name is Frank Thompson, and I have been a home builder, general contractor, land developer in the Pittsburgh suburbs for over 30-years. Over the last 15-years, I have had extensive experience in the building code development and adoption process. My first experiences were at the International Code Council. The IRC, the International Residential Code that you're heard referenced today, the one that contains the fire sprinkler mandate, I had the honor as serving as a drafter of that document as well as following that with Chairing the
Committee, the IRC Building and Energy Code Development Committee that heard all the code changes to that over a 5-year period of time, for the 2003 and the 2006 editions of that code. I still continue to serve in capacities at the ICC and their code development process.
Two years ago I was appointed to the newly formed Uniform Construction Code Review and Advisory Council as the residential general contractor and have I've been honored to serve as
Chairman since then. These experiences have given me a thorough understanding of the process, both at ICC and Pennsylvania, and my comments reflect both of those experiences.
Your consideration of this bill is very timely, though it seems like just last week we finalized our review of the 2009 codes, time is very short to begin the review of the 2012 codes.
Those codes will be published in April, just next month, and later this year the Council will begin reviewing them for their appropriateness in Pennsylvania.
Speaking to the ICC, since the controversies regarding irregularities in third party funding of travel for voting members and verification of voting members credentials back in the
2009 ICC code development, the ICC has been working to reform its process to try and address questions about its validity. In 2009, there were a number of changes that were proposed to the Board of Directors and the general membership, some of those passed, some of those didn't. In
2010, the ICC formed a Code Development Review ad-hoc Committee composed of board members and industry representatives with the task to take a comprehensive look at the ICC code development process and make recommendations to the ICC Board for improvements, if needed.
That committee has met 4-times since June and is scheduled to meet one last time later this month to complete its work and advance its recommendations to the ICC Board. Their preliminary reports, which are available on their Web site, reflect numerous recommendations that would result in substantial changes to the code development process and voting member qualifications if they are adopted by the Board of Directors and the membership. I'm optimistic that those reforms will go in place. I'm very proud of my service at the ICC, I continue to look to them as the leader in model code development and they have tried to deal with change in changing times.
As we look for codes that are appropriate for Pennsylvania, we should reflect that. We set that in place with the formation of the RAC in 2009 to at least provide another step there to see that there was appropriateness for that model code as it came over from the ICC.
In the spring of 2009 when the Council reviewed the 2009 codes, the Council had just formed and it had a looming dealing that gave it less than 2-months to consider the hundreds of new and amended provisions to the I-codes. Literally, we had our first meeting March 9 and we needed to have a report on the Secretary of Labor and Industry's desk May 1.
There was clearly insufficient time to engage the public in the process and provide input to the Council. In a 4-week period of time, the Council deliberated on the few recommendations for exclusions that were brought before it. There was not a single recommendation for exclusion relating to the International Building Code, and that’s a code that has the broadest scope. It covers high rise residential, commercial construction, industrial, as well as institutional construction. There wasn't a single proposal to exclude a change. But, it gave me a grave indication of the lack of public input that we were able to garner in such a short period of time.
The net result to the Secretary was a report recommending that no provisions be excluded from the I-Codes to be adopted in Pennsylvania.
Since that time, the Council has continued to meet and become a more cohesive group.
We have reviewed a number of pieces of legislation and forwarded our recommendations to this
Committee and the Speaker of the House as well as your counterparts in the Senate. So, after each Council meeting over the last 18-months, you should be receiving an e-mail from me shortly after that meeting. I hope you have. Some of them I read replies that you've at least received them, and if not, please see me after or ask your staff to get in touch with me, I want to make sure you get those. You should have received two last week from me. We try to weigh-in on the position of the Council on various legislation as the Council sees it. We hope that our insight is helpful to you in deliberating those bills.
In July of this year, the Council will review and finalize the process by which it will deliberate the over 900 new and amended provisions that it can take action on for the 2012 I-
Codes. I will be encouraging the Council to be as proactive as possible in engaging the public in the process, as we should all recognize that the people who purchase the new, renovated, or repaired residences, commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings under these codes are the ones who really pay for these codes. With likely hundreds of millions of dollars of additional costs imposed on Pennsylvanians with each new code adoption, we need to hear from the public before we adopt the codes.
At its March 10 meeting, just two weeks ago, the Council considered a number of newly introduced bills including House Bill 725, and those recommendations were forwarded to you last week. The Council did not recommend House Bill 725 for passage, noting that, "there was merit in meeting in different locations, however, the bill countermands the previous decisions of the Council and reverses the Council process that will be counterproductive."
The Council did have some discussion regarding specific provisions of the bill, but did not agree to any more detailed recommendations. I believe that many members of the Council feel that the Council did a good job in its review of the 2009 I-Codes, and is prepared to undertake the task again with no changes in the process or its powers.
At meetings in 2010, the Council reviewed three other bills that amended the code adoption process. I have forwarded those recommendations to you if you served on this
Committee in the last session, you would have received them.
All three bills were not recommended for passage, the Council opposed provisions that made it advisory only, that removed its authority to exclude code changes, and that provided for the General Assembly to adopt the codes by statute following recommendations from the
Council. The Council was supportive of expanding the authority of the Council to add additional code provisions and appendices to the codes in what would be adopted in Pennsylvania.
Regarding the Section 901 exemptions in House Bill 725, the fire sprinklers, wall bracing, range hood exhaust, attic access insulation, and deck ledger exemptions, they would all countermand decisions that the Council made in reviewing the 2009 codes. The Council has not had any discussions specific to the floor fire protection provisions that are in House Bill 725.
The Council reviewed legislation that is specific to the log wall issue, Senate Bill 481, that does not contain any of these other components, and does recommend it for passage with the addition of a technical amendment to provide for an increasing stringency on log wall requirements consistent with the overall energy code. That was included in the recommendations that you should have received last week, the actual language of the technical amendment.
Speaking as an individual in the absence of specific Council recommendations on some of the provisions of House Bill 725, it is very rare that a newly developed process such as this cannot benefit from a constructive discussion of the process and consideration of changes that may improve it. With that in mind, there are several sections that I would like to give my personal comments on.
The length of the review process by the Council – without any change in the Law, the
Council will have 12-months from publication of the codes to submit its recommendations to the
Secretary. If they are published April 30 of this year, we'll have 12 months to look at it. The last, in the 2009 codes, the I-Codes were just being published in April of 2009 as we began our review. You've heard some comments about a date specific in there. I think that's dangerous. I think something that's triggered by the publication of the I-Codes is the right way to go, because it's not within our control. If we're going to use those as a starting point, we'd better have those in our hands before we start the review. We'd have 12 months this time around, the bill, I think, speaks to 15 months, so there's not much difference there, and you've heard comments from other parties today here that perhaps we need more time. I don't think we need to be in any rush to the finish line on this process. It's more important to make sure that we have time for public input, hear that public input, and then be able to act on it. Perhaps more than 15 months is appropriate.
As it relates to conducting some of the hearings at additional locations outside of
Harrisburg, the Council did feel there was merit in meeting in different locations, and personally,
I do too. We need to reach out to better insure public input from all regions of the State. As it relates to permitting modifications of the new or amended provisions, and you've heard some discussion from some of the other testifiers here as it relates to that, personally, I support that. I look at two examples that tell us it makes good sense to do that. You heard about this dryer duct length issue. Two I-Codes, the fuel gas code and the mechanical code say it can be up to 35 feet in length. The residential code says 25 feet. It would have been great had the
RAC had the modification power to say, we're going to make all three consistent, we're going to change the IRC to 35 feet. But, as we're structured now, we couldn't do that.
You also heard about the issue with log homes. The log home folks came to us in April when we were considering the new and amended provisions and asked us for an amendment.
They said, we need help, we're going to be put substantially out of business by the energy provisions here, we need your help in making an amendment to the code. We told them we couldn't. They came back in August at a subsequent meeting and said, we'd like your help in perhaps working a statutory change since we couldn't do it through a modification. That statutory change is before you in a number of different bills, including Senate Bill 481. If we have the modification power, we could have fixed it there, not had it in half a dozen other different pieces of legislation over two different sessions. Many other States, I will tell you, do have that power for their building code council.
The requirement for a two-thirds vote for the Council for recommendations, right now we have the super majority of 52% as being the requirement. If we look out to what other bodies do in trying to build consensus on a decision, many of us would say the American National
Standards Institute, ANSI, is probably the gold standard in a due process for consensus standards. They require at least two-thirds of the voting members approve a proposal. Maybe two-thirds isn't right, maybe 52% isn't right, maybe somewhere in the middle is right, but certainly if you look at what's happening in other arenas, more than 52% may be appropriate.
In consideration of the controversial nature and significant financial consequences of some of the most debated building code provisions, perhaps there is merit in that greater degree of consensus as we move forward. Someone might look at, what's the cost of the 2009 IRC on a typical home? If we say it's $5,000 per home and we have 20,000 permits in Pennsylvania in
2011, we've added $100 million to the cost of housing in Pennsylvania. If it's $10,000, $200 million. As we get back to a more stable number of permits, maybe 30,000 is the long term average, you've got to multiply those by another 50% to see what the real impact of these changes makes. Right now, the appraisals on those houses aren't going up. My guess is those costs are in the form of additional down payments that home buyers in Pennsylvania would be making.
There's a provision in the bill to submit a report to the Secretary explaining the reasons for each of the recommendations by four different criteria. The first three criteria are currently listed in the statute as "may" provisions, but there's no requirement that the Council relay its decision to those provisions. I think those first three that are already in the statute are very sound provisions, and making them a "shall" provision rather than a "may" I support. I also think consideration should be given to adding that fourth process, because affordability should be a factor in everything we do in government.
Promulgation by the Department, though I believe the ability to delete some of the
Council's recommendations is a delicate situation, this is a process that is used in many States.
Several of our neighbors have advisory bodies that then the Secretary of Labor and Industry or their counterpart in New Jersey or New York or Ohio do have the ability to delete provisions.
There are provisions in the bill now as to accessibility standards and the International Fuel Gas Code. Right now, they're on track that they have to be adopted by December 31 of the year of the code. So, they'd be going on a separate regulatory track from the rest of these codes if these changes are made. If we're going to make changes, I think that needs fine tuned so that all the codes are going forward as a group and going through one regulatory review process.
I did hear some discussion earlier about additional seats on the Council. Again, I'd like to mention the ANSI requirements, that gold standard for consensus process. If you read section 2.3 of their essential elements, it speaks to how you have to have balance on the committee and that consumers can be a represented group that would get seats on a committee and provide for that balance since they're the ones that in the end are going to be responsible for paying for it.
I'm not saying whether that's the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, but looking out there it's not that strange of a process.
I would also like to mention to you that the Council has discussed some other statutory changes to the UCC Act. Aus Marburger mentioned one of those regarding the terms of the
Council members. Again, you should have received a memo last Friday from me that listed all of those different suggested recommendations for statutory changes that you may want to consider in any bill that moves forward and changes the UCC Act.
In closing, the Council voted not to recommend House Bill 725. If the General Assembly in its wisdom does decide to make changes to the process, I would encourage to do so now and prior to the Council beginning its review of the 2012 I-Codes July and after.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Thompson for your testimony. It's always good to hear from somebody that has been in the trenches dealing with all of the issues that we're looking at, here. I do have one question. As far as the ability of the RAC to look at or recommend changes or make changes, would there have been a two-thirds vote to make the changes with the log wall and with the dryer vent? Do you think that would have been? They were pretty simple things that the RAC was pretty much in agreement with, or was that controversial?
CHAIRMAN THOMPSON: The dryer duct, I think ended up the first time passing 18-0, something like that, and then you've heard the comments about how they reversed that decision because of the Regulatory Review Process that would be encumbered by it. So, it was clearly beyond the two-thirds. There was good discussion on the amendatory language for the log homes, and I think we were more than two-thirds there in the modification that's in the recommendations that we've forwarded to you.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: I appreciate that answer, just wanted to try to get a better feel for whether it is appropriate to allow that change to be made within your group.
Chairman Keller.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr. Thompson, thank you, especially for volunteering. I know you must put a lot of personal time into this. From we're hearing today, I think you guys are doing a great job.
I'd like to thank you for representing Pennsylvania the way you do.
You were very informative and thoughtful in your testimony, and I think there's some common ground that we can work on and maybe make the changes that will make this process better. If Captain Kirk here could slow down a little bit, maybe we'll have some time to get some of those changes into the bill.
CHAIRMAN THOMPSON: I would, I appreciate your comments. I do, again, request that if you're going to do something, do it sooner rather than later, because the Council is going to begin down this process and knowing the volunteer hours that they put in, I'd hate to see them start the process a second time.
CHAIRMAN KELLER: You better be careful sooner around here. It might be sooner with stuff you don't like is the problem.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you.
Seeing no other questions from members, I thank you for your testimony.
This hearing is adjourned and for those of you that are gluttons for punishment, we'll be back in about an hour for the third of our hearings.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, the meeting adjourned at 5:57 p.m.)
The above is a full and accurate transcript of proceedings produced by the Official Reporter’s
Office of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
______
Jessica L. Rabuck, Reporter's Office