Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/28/1998 09:00 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SCR 19 - PROTOTYPE SCHOOL DESIGN
SENATOR TIM KELLY, co-chair of the Deferred Maintenance Task Force
(DMTF), presented SCR 19. The DMTF received testimony on the cost
savings and operational advantages of prototypical schools.
Several communities use them today; the task force found that
savings in design costs and ease of maintaining several identical
physical plants offered the opportunity to fund more schools as the
savings are achieved. One rural school district has expressed
great interest in using a prototype for schools in its district and
is currently in discussion with the Fairbanks School District to
learn from the Fairbanks experience. Two schools in Fairbanks are
of the same design and were built at less cost. The resolution
requests the Department of Education (DOE) to develop prototypical
schools and incentives for districts to use them. The DOE is
requested to report to the Legislature by March 1 any statutory
changes that may be needed to accomplish this goal.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN commented that he was also a member of the DMTF and
he had prior experience on the prototype effort through his
association with the Fairbanks' School District. When traveling
throughout the Northwest District this summer, he was struck by the
idea that a prototypical school in those areas would be a welcome
addition to the villages at a significantly lower cost. If the
state can build schools across the state for less than double digit
numbers, it will get more for its dollars.
Number 081
DOUG GREEN, a member and chair of the Governmental Affairs
Committee of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), and the
Alaska Professional Design Council (APFC), gave the following
testimony. Prototypes used in Anchorage and Fairbanks have been
successful because both locations have larger populations and
similar site conditions, and because the same firms were involved
in reusing the designs. Although those projects were successful,
he stated the following concerns about using that concept
statewide. In 1991 the Georgia DOE surveyed 49 states and found
many of the states that had tried prototypical designs would not
use them again, and no states used them on a statewide basis. The
State of Alaska has a wide variety of site, climatic, and soil
conditions; very little is saved when different conditions have to
be considered in the design of each school. There is a high cost
associated with developing various designs for different climatic
and soil conditions across the state. If all site conditions are
similar, a cost savings of 15 to 20 percent can result from using
prototypical designs. These designs, once developed, become
outdated with code changes and technological advances. If the
committee's goal is to save money, the AIA has found that in small
communities where local residents are involved in the design of a
school, they take much greater responsibility for the building and
treat it better. That pride of ownership translates to lower
maintenance costs and better care for the facility. The AIA's
third concern is with liability. If prototypical designs are used
statewide, one architect may have to modify the original design
which could create liability problems. In addition, AIA believes
there may be problems with standardizing educational
specifications. He suggested headway could be made by introducing
a database of features that have worked well for school districts
across the state.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN asked what the other variables would be difficult
to incorporate into a basic school design across the state, other
than foundations and sloping sites. MR. GREEN said many of the
variables are climate related. In Southeast, buildings must be
designed for heavy rainfall and moisture in the air, on the north
and west coasts the concern is fine powder-driven snow
infiltration, vapor barrier concerns, insulation, and wind
patterns. Using a prototype design might result in an over-designed model in S
along the north coast.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN clarified SCR 19 only applies to primary schools.
He suggested creating three prototypical designs for different
climates: north of the Alaska Range, Southcentral, and Southeast.
MR. GREEN stated there are also different seismic zones throughout
the State that require specific design standards for each zone.
Number 225
CHAIRMAN WILKEN noted Len Mackler would be testifying next via
teleconference. Mr. Mackler testified before the DMTF meeting in
Fairbanks and gave a visual presentation, and gave task force
members a tour of two prototypical schools.
LEN MACKLER stated the Fairbanks School District uses a 600-student
elementary school prototype. The first school was built in 1993;
six more have been built since. The Fairbanks School District owns
the design, and has improved it each time to correct any facility
or educational program problems that arose out of previous
versions. The prototype requires a fairly flat site. The school
district also has a sloped site design that has only been used
once. The last of the seven prototypes built cost $9.9 million in
construction costs, for a 63,000 square foot building ($157 per sq.
ft.). Fairbanks has realized several advantages of prototype
design use. The first advantage is time saved which can eliminate
one year of inflation costs, get the students into better
facilities sooner, and reduce overcrowding faster. Voters also see
a quicker response to bond issues. The second advantage is the
cost savings. Fairbanks is spending about five percent of
construction costs on architect and engineering designs versus the
more typical 10 to 11 percent for each new design. That six
percent difference amounts to about $750,000 plus the one year
inflation savings. The third advantage is bid competitiveness.
Contractors who bid on these projects know that the low bidder on
each previous prototype made money and that the designs are
complete. Every project has come in under the engineer's estimate.
The fourth advantage is the teachers' and principals' significant
input into the design. After the first year of occupancy, all
staff are surveyed and asked for suggestions. Those comments are
analyzed and incorporated into the next design. The designs are
also upgraded for technology and current codes, and one district
wide special education program is included to meet that program's
needs. Start-up problems are drastically reduced. The last
advantage is the standardization of systems and use of high quality
components, which reaps big rewards in overall maintenance
programs.
MR. MACKLER explained the Fairbanks' School District has also used
elements of the prototypical designs in renovations and additions
to older schools. In summary, the Fairbanks' community likes the
prototypical concept and has saved considerable money in initial
construction costs and in the long term maintenance costs of its
facilities.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN asked who has opposed the effort for prototypical
schools in Fairbanks. MR. MACKLER answered the only complaint came
from some people in the design community, particularly architects
who were beaten out during the RFP phase by the original architect
who knew the most about the building. Based on the savings and
input from the staff using the building, that complaint was found
to have no merit.
Number 484
SENATOR LEMAN questioned who assumes the liability for the school
district when the prototype designs are changed. MR. MACKLER
answered the borough has public works staff who contract for the
construction. The borough owns the prototype design, and each
upgraded design, so it does assume some liability.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if changes are being made to the design, the
borough would have full responsibility for the design. He asked
who is stamping the contract documents. MR. MACKLER said the
architects are stamping the contract documents. SENATOR LEMAN
asked if the architects are under contract to the school district.
MR. MACKLER replied each time a prototype is about to be built, the
school district issues an RFP to hire an architect; that architect
is responsible for the design and stamps the drawings. SENATOR
LEMAN asked if the architect takes the district's prototype design,
makes the appropriate changes for that site, incorporates
technology upgrades, and seals the contract documents. MR. MACKLER
said that is the procedure used.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN noted that Mr. Mackler is a member of the Bond
Reimbursement and Grant Review Committee which will visit this
issue on February 19 in Juneau.
LOU MATHESON, the Superintendent of the Northwest Arctic Borough
School District (NWABSD), testified via teleconference from
Kotzebue. NWABSD supports the concept of prototypical schools
because it believes the approach has merit, even in rural Alaska
and on different building sites. Prototypical school designs will
bring about an initial reduction in construction costs, primarily
due to decreased design costs, and the standardization of equipment
and materials should reduce operating costs. NWABSD also
anticipates there will be a reduction in expansion costs. One
school in Kotzebue, completed in 1989, is already well beyond its
capacity. If the prototypical design could be expanded easily,
rather than requiring a complete redesign, cost savings will
result. NWABSD offered to assist the committee to expedite
severely-needed new construction in rural Alaska.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN noted the Buckland School is seventh on the capital
replacement list.
DAVID BELL, testifying from Kotzebue, stated Mr. Matheson covered
the remarks he planned to make.
Number 388
MIKE MORGAN, Facilities Manager for the Department of Education
(DOE), made the following comments. To accomplish the goals of SCR
19, DOE will need more definition. The resolution does not clarify
whether it applies to elementary schools only, and what core school
functions are. He noted that the issue of school size has not been
addressed either. DOE's position paper postulates four different
size ranges which allows for expandability. He cautioned that DOE
used a stock plan in the 1970's, and if prototypical designs are
used again, he would want assurance that the same problems do not
recur.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN asked if the Molly Hootch schools are "cookie-cutter" schools.
the same plan.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN stated that he and Senator Leman had a chance to
see some of those schools and felt they were disappointing at best.
MR. MORGAN said the design with a narrow stairway going to a forced
air furnace room was replicated in a number of places around the
state, and that design suffers in a number of aspects.
MR. MORGAN informed the committee he attended a conference held by
the Council of Educational Facility Planners last summer. British
Columbia's experience with facility planning was discussed.
British Columbia has a wide climatic and school size range, similar
to Alaska. To control costs, it has placed a limit on the per
square foot cost with an adjustment for area, and requires value
engineering. Value engineering requires the use of a procedure to
determine that specific components make good economic sense over
the full life of the school, such as the use of cedar siding.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN commented this legislation may be the worst idea
to come down the pike but this issue needs to be explored by the
Bond Reimbursement Committee, DMTF members, and DOE staff. He
repeated if 15 to 20 percent is saved on each school, the
Legislature can get down the list a lot faster.
SENATOR ELLIS asked Mr. Morgan if he was suggesting Alaska adopt
some of the procedures used in British Columbia as an alternative
to what SCR 19 mandates, the development of regulations and
incentives for using prototypes. MR. MORGAN said the issue of
prototypes brings to the table the various things that need to be
done to control costs. He was offering that information as other
possible avenues that could be used instead of, or in conjunction
with, the use of prototypical designs.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN stated that one of the charges of the Bond
Reimbursement Committee, formed in 1994 by the Legislature, is to
analyze existing prototypical designs for school construction
projects. This idea began long before the DMTF came along.
SENATOR ELLIS asked whether any organizations have compiled
statistics or anecdotes from previous experiences in the '70s with
the prototypical approach. MR. MORGAN replied that nothing has
been documented, but creating a "lessons learned" report is on
DOE's list of things to do.
Number 469
CHAIRMAN WILKEN stated that he learned, from his limited visits to
the Bush this summer, that the Molly Hootch schools offered the
opportunity to task the maintenance of any school district. In
his opinion, those schools were not built for Alaska.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if Mr. Green had sent written testimony to the
committee. CHAIRMAN WILKEN stated the Society of Architects would
be submitting a position paper, and that SCR 19 would remain in
committee so that members could work on the K-6 issue and other
changes.
Number 484
SENATOR LEMAN said he served on the DMTF and has been in many
schools around the state in his professional capacity. He stated
he shares many of Mr. Green's reservations, and is concerned that
the Legislature thinks it can apply a simplistic solution statewide
to solve this problem. He agrees with the goal of getting good
designs at a lower cost and that this approach has been successful
in Anchorage and Fairbanks, and he favors encouraging this approach
where it can be successful. He cautioned that it would be unwise
to think this approach is a cure-all for new school construction
statewide. He suggested keeping a repository in DOE of successful
plans, but noted he is reluctant to ask the DOE to develop
prototypical designs. Senator Leman concluded that he likes the
goal of the resolution, but believes this approach could be
dangerous in some circumstances. He offered to work with all
interested to craft the measure to encourage the appropriate
activity to accomplish the goal.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN acknowledged Senator Leman's remarks and explained
SCR 19 has been offered as a concept for the Administration and
Legislature to work toward. He announced to those on
teleconference that SCR 19, if it passes the Legislature, will be
brought before the Bond Reimbursement Committee on February 19.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if SCR 19 will be scheduled before the
committee again. CHAIRMAN WILKEN said it would.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|