Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/21/1998 10:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 1998
10:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ivan M. Ivan, Vice Chairman
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING:
Personnel Board
Charles H. Parr - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 313
"An Act relating to preventive maintenance programs required for
certain state grants; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 313(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS:
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Philip R. Volland - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
State Commission for Human Rights
Ruth Gronlid Benson - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Kathleen Harrington - Anchorage
- CONFORMATION ADVANCED
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Dennis E. "Skip" Cook - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 315
"An Act relating to operating appropriations for annual maintenance
and repair and periodic renewal and replacement of public buildings
and facilities; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 315(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 313
SHORT TITLE: PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF DMT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/12/98 2026 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/12/98 2026 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
2/05/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/05/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/07/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/07/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/17/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/17/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/21/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 315
SHORT TITLE: OPERATING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF DMT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/12/98 2027 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/12/98 2027 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
2/05/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/05/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/07/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/07/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/17/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/17/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/21/98 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
CHARLES PARR, Appointee
to the Personnel Board
909 John Kalinas Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to his
appointment to the Personnel Board.
DENNIS DeWITT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Eldon Mulder
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statements for HB 313 and
HB 315.
MICHAEL MORGAN, PMP Manager
Facilities Section
Education Support Services
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-1858
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 313.
PHILIP R. VOLLAND, Appointee
to the Alaska Public Offices Commission
211 "H" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions as appointee to the Alaska
Public Offices Commission.
RUTH GRONLID BENSON, Appointee
to the State Commission for Human Rights
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions as appointee to the State
Commission for Human Rights.
KATHLEEN HARRINGTON, Appointee
to the Alaska Public Offices Commission
Gotthard Avenue, Suite 1242
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 561-8654
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions as appointee to the Alaska
Public Offices Commission.
DENNIS E. "SKIP" COOK, Appointee
to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
431 Birch Hill Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 456-6994
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
Telephone: (907) 465-4676
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 315.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Dyson, Hodgins, Ivan and
Vezey. Representatives Elton, and Berkowitz arrived at 10:06 a.m.
and 10:09 a.m., respectively.
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Personnel Board
CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business was the
confirmation hearing of Charles Parr to the Personnel Board.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Parr to give a brief statement of his
qualifications and why he would like to be appointed to the board.
Number 0094
CHARLES PARR, Appointee to the Personnel Board, stated that as far
as qualifications are concerned, the committee members have a copy
of his resume that shows his service to the state. The Personnel
Board is important for people who have problems with the personnel
system. It is for a final recourse while at the same time it
protects the interest of the state and tax payers. He said he
believes he can do the job.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to move Charles Parr's nomination
to the Personnel Board forward.
Number 0201
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY made a motion to move the nomination of
Charles Parr to the state Personnel Board to the floor of the House
of Representatives for consideration by the full body. There being
no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at ease at 10:09 a.m. She called
the meeting back to order at 10:10 a.m.
HB 313 - PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business would be HB 313,
"An Act relating to preventive maintenance programs required for
certain state grants; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR JAMES called on Dennis DeWitt, staff to Representative Eldon
Mulder, sponsor of the bill.
Number 0327
DENNIS DeWITT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Eldon
Mulder, Alaska State Legislature, stated last year he served as the
chief of staff for the Deferred Maintenance Task Force. House Bill
313 is an attempt to ensure the entities that receive a capital
grant or financing have reasonable preventative maintenance
programs in place prior to receiving funds from the legislature.
The task force found that there are a significant number of
facilities built by municipalities, for example, with state funds
that are not being cared for. The same facilities are being
presented back to the legislature regularly for funds for
improvements. The language in HB 313 is consistent with language
in HB 312, a bill that the House State Affairs Committee passed out
of committee last week.
MR. DeWITT further stated there is a proposed committee substitute
for HB 313, Version 0-LS1217\F, Cook, dated 2/9/98. The most
significant change is the effective date from July 1, 1998, to July
1, 1999. It would give recipients a little over a year to get
their maintenance programs in order. The bill considers most of
the requests from the Department of Education. The department
suggested using the language "building" instead of "all buildings"
to allow for flexibility and to not include sheds and other kinds
of buildings.
CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to adopt the proposed committee
substitute.
Number 0620
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute for HB 313, Version 0-LS1217\F, Cook, dated
2/9/98. There being no objection, the committee substitute was
adopted.
Number 0642
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked Mr. DeWitt whether there were any
recommendations from the Department of Education that were not
adopted.
Number 0660
MR. DeWITT replied, "Yes." He said the recommendation to match
Section 37.05.315, 316 and 317 with Section 37.06.010 and 37.06.020
was considered redundant and not necessary. The request to move
eligibility considerations to the ranking arena was considered a
policy call (Section 14.11.011 to 14.11.013(b)). In other words,
should a preventative maintenance program be a prerequisite or
considered lower in the process.
Number 0850
MICHAEL MORGAN, PMP Manager, Facilities Section, Education Support
Services, Department of Education, stated Section 14.11.011 has a
requirement for a preventative maintenance program for school
districts. It is considered an eligibility requirement. The
department suggested the requirement move to the scoring arena
because of the additional requirements to allow for a judgement on
the full range of the implementation of a program.
Number 0886
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Morgan whether there is already a
requirement in place for a maintenance program.
MR. MORGAN replied there is a statutory requirement for school
districts to have a preventative maintenance program in place.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Morgan whether that makes this
redundant.
MR. MORGAN replied not exactly. This expands the scope of what is
required within the preventative maintenance program. It requires
it to be a formal program. It includes a renewal replacement
schedule for components of facilities and adds energy management -
two very big issues.
Number 0955
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ stated the term "preventative
maintenance" is not defined anywhere in statute.
MR. MORGAN stated he thinks there is a statutory definition. If
there isn't a statutory definition, there is a regulatory
definition.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated the term "regular maintenance" is
defined to protect the school's structure.
Number 1033
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the language "evidence
acceptable" in the bill is acceptable to the department. Anytime
there is a requirement like that without a standard, it can vary
depending on the individuals involved.
Number 1060
MR. DeWITT replied that is true. It doesn't really matter how
tight the language is because there will be some difference from
person-to-person. The extent of its preciseness is a regulatory
definition. The folks that reviewed the bill from the Department
of Military and Veterans Affairs think it is consistent with the
kinds of programs recognized by maintenance professionals and are
comfortable with the requirement.
Number 1100
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated, "The question I have would be
like telling the jury, 'Well, if the evidence is acceptable to you,
you can convict.'" That is not an implementation of a standard to
provide a good direction.
Number 1117
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he has spent half of his life as a
maintenance engineer. There couldn't be a standard drawn tight
enough to satisfy what Representative Berkowitz is after and have
it be applicable to the incredible range of facilities out there.
It is a shame that it is even necessary. Any professional manager
of any facility that has a sense of responsibility ought to be
doing these sorts of things.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Morgan what is currently being done
now to audit the present statutory conformance.
Number 1270
MR. MORGAN replied currently school districts submit to the
Department of Education on a yearly basis requests for capital
projects on existing facilities. They have to inform the
department of any preventative maintenance programs and how they
have been implemented. They also have to demonstrate their
effectiveness. The department then evaluates the full range of
information presented.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Morgan whether the department is
auditing the paper trail and not the actual facility on the ground.
MR. MORGAN replied, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Morgan whether the department has
considered the energy management required in the bill.
MR. MORGAN replied the department has not throughly considered how
it may be implemented.
Number 1357
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that as the legislature goes forward
with deferred maintenance and transfers huge amounts of cash, he
is sure that it will be rewarding communities that are doing a poor
job. It is a public policy dilemma. He asked Mr. DeWitt whether
the issue was discussed in the task force.
Number 1400
MR. DeWITT replied, "You hit the toughest issue that the task force
tried to grapple with right on the head." The task force
ultimately decided that there should be some punishment for schools
in bad shape and some reward for schools in good shape, but the
people who suffer are the kids, not the people who make the
mistakes. In terms of public buildings, there is enough finger
pointing and blame to go around between the administration,
legislature, and everybody who is part of the problem. The task
force decided that the best thing to do is to try to put these
things into place so that we don't have to revisit them.
Number 1475
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated fire is still one of the scourges of
the Arctic and sub-Arctic. He asked whether there should be a
requirement for a fire prevention/suppression plan.
Number 1503
MR. MORGAN replied the state fire marshall about one and a half
years ago passed emergency regulations requiring a sprinkler system
in all schools. Thus, any new school or one undergoing renovation
needs a sprinkler system in order to get the plan approved by the
state fire marshall.
Number 1535
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Morgan whether the requirements
under Section 14.11.011 are working.
MR. MORGAN replied they appear to be working. He said he has seen
an improvement in the plans offered and an incremental process in
the evidence to show that the school districts are doing a better
job.
Number 1568
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the objective is for better public
facilities, not a better process. Are we or are we not doing a
better job? Are we or are we not doing a good job under the
existing statute in maintaining our facilities?
MR. MORGAN replied in many instances we could be doing a better
job.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated one of the proposed changes results in
better public facilities.
MR. MORGAN stated over the long term they will.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Morgan how is that.
MR. MORGAN replied primarily because of (B) on page 2, line 21 of
the bill. It starts to address the full range of the components of
a building. Typically, people think of the mechanical side of
deferred maintenance such as motors and pumps. Subsection (B) asks
people to consider the mechanical systems, as well as the walls,
floors, roofs, interiors and exteriors, for example. It asks for
preventative maintenance on the full range of the components and
because many of those components have been left out of traditional
preventative maintenance programs it should help in the long run.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Morgan whether it would help prevent
some of the major problems.
MR. MORGAN replied that's correct. Maintenance problems would be
caught before becoming too aggravated. He cited a leaky roof as an
example.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Morgan whether he is saying there
needs to be more resources put into maintenance. There is a big
difference between studying it and doing it. The only thing that
he has seen come from the task force is setting a new record for
studying the problem. He has not seen any commitment to fix a
single thing. Representative Vezey said, "If we're going to write
a directive that's going to improve maintenance, let's not direct
it at the people who are trying to do the maintenance. From my
experience traveling all over the state, there are some pretty
competent people working at these facilities, and given the
resources they would do an incredible job and know when to ask for
help when they need it. But, what about the school boards and the
legislature and the municipal assemblies that act to provide the
means to do this. Are we giving them guidelines? Are we giving
them mandates? It just doesn't do any good to berate the
facility's manager because he works out of the budget."
MR. MORGAN agreed one of the problems with the maintenance issue is
funding.
Number 1772
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how this ties into the proposal for a
prototypical design.
Number 1784
MR. DeWITT replied a prototypical design is getting a quality
facility that is easier to maintain including implementation of a
maintenance program.
Number 1814
CHAIR JAMES stated one method to make maintenance easier is the
choice of components that go into a school. In other words, the
components should be uniform and the parts should be available in
the state. In addition, there is a problem because some schools
are owned by boroughs and some schools are owned by the state. She
believes, personally, that the legislature has a bigger
responsibility for the schools owned by the state. The
legislature, therefore, has the authority to require components
that work well for a better overall plan.
Number 1892
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he doesn't understand requiring a plan
for a prototypical design when there isn't anything in the bill
that mandates the authority to fund a maintenance program.
Number 1916
MR. DeWITT stated HB 315, addresses the issue of accomplishing what
Representative Vezey is driving at - operating appropriations for
maintenance. The task force heard a lot about whether or not the
legislature intends for the money that it has appropriated to be
used for building maintenance or program implementation. An
administrator can look at the money and decide where to spend it.
Number 1968
CHAIR JAMES stated the same amount of money under the foundation
formula for maintenance has been given to the bush schools. Some
are doing a good job while some are not. There is the issue of
making sure that schools focus on maintenance. In addition, there
has been a suggestion for a line-item in the budget on maintenance.
She agrees that there is no point in putting in a plan if it is not
funded.
Number 2011
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN M. IVAN asked whether the department provides
technical guidance for the folks in the Rural Education Attendance
Areas (REAAs). He said he doesn't believe that they should not
have a preventative maintenance program in place.
Number 2064
MR. MORGAN replied the department published a handbook on
preventative maintenance last year. The department also forwards
the best programs to requesters for ideas to improve their own
programs.
Number 2102
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked Mr. Morgan whether a program gets funded
if the department doesn't agree with its preventative maintenance
plan.
MR. MORGAN replied currently that is not the case. There are two
aspects involved - a statutory requirement for a preventative
maintenance program in order to be eligible for funding, and a
ranking based on effectiveness. Thus, if there is a program but it
is not very effective, it means it might not be ranked as high as
a program that is very effective.
Number 2133
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked whether the proposed committee substitute
caps the matching grant program.
MR. DeWITT replied, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he doesn't have a problem with that. It
has worked well in his community. The blueprints and building
plans have to be reviewed by the fire marshall.
Number 2155
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated there are a limited number of tools and
he sees the bill as a precondition as a good steward for a new
facility.
Number 2206
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, for clarification, whether Sections 2
and 3 refer to capital grant programs.
Number 2227
MR. DeWITT replied, "Correct." The bill requires the same from
grants made to municipalities, not just schools. The task force
found that there are a lot of municipalities that get facilities
through state grants that are coming back to the legislature for
repairs and maintenance. The intent is for a broad coverage so
that when state funds go out, they go to folks who have a
commitment to maintain facilities to save money over the long term.
Number 2266
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wondered how the bill would apply to an
obsolescent facility.
Number 2284
MR. DeWITT replied the notion of a preventive maintenance program
applies to all facilities. It probably wouldn't save a building
that is obsolete. There would probably be a request for a new
grant at which time the bill would require a preventative
maintenance program. The bill doesn't mandate a maintenance
program in every building today, but it does mandate one when
additional money is being asked for through grants.
Number 2359
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked when did the task force figure
the money would get in the mail.
Number 2368
MR. DeWITT replied through the appropriation process. The next
bill scheduled today, HB 315, will help clarify the appropriation
process and focus dollars on maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked whether that would be this year or
next year.
MR. DeWITT replied that with the changing price of oil and to the
extent that there are limited operational funds, there will
probably be limited capital funds as well.
Number 2397
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that there seems to be a good
carrot-and-stick approach for the state to use vis- -vis the
municipalities, but he doesn't see a reciprocal requirement on the
state. There isn't conditional language for the state to fund any
maintenance.
Number 2421
CHAIR JAMES stated the funds are all part of the appropriation
process. Funding cannot be mandated.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied the legislature can require the
Department of Education to budget for it. It is a separate issue,
however, whether or not the legislature funds it.
Number 2440
MR. MORGAN stated the department budgets for capital requests for
department facilities such as Mt. Edgecumbe. The process for
capital requests for school districts is laid out in Section 14.11
and is a separate process. It is not part of the department's
request. It is part of the governor's capital program.
Number 2464
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that if the state says to any
agency to do something then it should be required to respond at
some point from the legislature.
Number 2470
CHAIR JAMES stated there are a lot of unfunded mandates. She
agrees that they aren't good. Having gone to the bush areas...
TAPE 98-21, SIDE B
Number 0000
CHAIR JAMES continued. They all have the same amount of money from
the foundation formula to spend on facilities. Therefore, putting
the focus on the need for it will shore up the ability to get
things done. In addition, the component of simplifying maintenance
and making it less expensive in the long run will also maximize the
use of funds.
Number 0027
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated Section 2 addresses municipal
facilities and the state's contribution.
MR. MORGAN replied, "Correct."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated Section 3 addresses state or agency
facilities.
MR. MORGAN replied Section 3 addresses unincorporated boroughs.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated a mandate is not being put on state
agencies.
MR. MORGAN stated HB 312 accomplishes that.
Number 0083
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. DeWitt what would happen if the
legislature appropriated money for an unmatched grant program. He
asked if the department would then have to say no if there isn't a
plan in place acceptable to the department. Whose vision or
statute would prevail? Would the appropriation prevail over this
requirement or does this requirement prevail over the appropriation
so that the department has to say no?
Number 0111
MR. DeWITT replied, in his judgement, this would prevail. There
are a number of conditions prior to getting dollars from the state.
The legislature makes an appropriation and asks the agency to make
sure that it is in proper form before it goes out.
CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to move the bill out of the
committee.
Number 0145
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move the proposed committee
substitute for HB 313, version 0-LS1217\F, Cook, dated 2/9/98, out
of the committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHB 313(STA) moved from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Alaska Public Offices Commission
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business was the
confirmation hearing of Philip P. Volland to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC).
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Volland to give a brief overview of his
qualifications and why he would like to serve on the commission.
Number 0187
PHILIP R. VOLLAND, Appointee to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, stated he is not sure why the Governor thought he would
be well suited for the appointment. His background lends itself to
similar quasi-judicial work that the commission does. For over six
years, he was on the Board of Governors for the Alaska Bar
Association which works in a similar fashion as the APOC. The
association reviews staff recommendations regarding penalties for
violations of the various laws it administers, disciplines
attorneys, and approves ethic opinions requiring the application
and judgement of the law and facts. It is also helpful that he is
a lawyer for analyzing statutes and applying fact patterns for
problem resolutions.
MR. VOLLAND further stated that this isn't something he wanted to
do. He did not grow up wanting to be a member of the APOC, but he
takes public service seriously. It is important for people with
experience to volunteer their services and to work on boards or
commissions. He was asked to serve and has made a commitment to do
that. It is a sacrifice. It takes away from his practice. It is
disingenuous to say it is something that he wants to do, but he has
made a commitment and will follow through on it.
CHAIR JAMES stated he has at least exerted the willingness.
Number 0305
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Volland whether he has any
experience in political campaigns.
MR. VOLLAND replied he does not have experience in campaigns other
than by periodically giving money to candidates. He has experience
in the political arena at large as a lobbyist. For six to eight
years, until his appointment, he was a registered lobbyist and
practiced for a good three to four years in Juneau.
Number 0351
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he served on the APOC for a little over
two years. He asked Mr. Volland whether he has a personal or
professional interest in the subject of campaign finance, lobbying,
or conflict of interest regulations that the commission is charged
with regulating.
Number 0377
MR. VOLLAND replied the issues associated with campaign finance and
disclosure with the new law will be interesting and challenging.
It is not something that he has done as part of his profession.
Mr. Volland said he has had an interest in the regulation of
lobbying because he was regulated and understands the steps that
the people have to go through.
Number 0403
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he is searching for whether or not Mr.
Volland has an interest and willingness to devote the time it will
take to become an expert in this esoteric area of the law.
MR. VOLLAND replied he would not have agreed to the appointment if
he wasn't willing to make the commitment.
Number 0432
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ declared a conflict of interest because he
knows Mr. Volland personally.
CHAIR JAMES noted his conflict for the record.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to forward Mr. Volland's name to
the floor of the House of Representatives for confirmation. She
noted that the motion does not necessarily indicate support of the
confirmation.
Number 0450
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wondered what part of the board makeup is Mr.
Volland fulfilling - two members from the party that received the
most votes, two members from the party that received the second
most votes, and one appointed by the four members.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Volland to indicate his political
affiliation.
MR. VOLLAND replied he understands he was appointed for one of the
vacant Democrat positions.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated there is no requirement that the
individual be affiliated with any party or be nonpartisan.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Volland whether he knows who recommended him
to the Governor.
MR. VOLLAND replied, "I do not know."
Number 0525
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN wondered how the APOC is executing the new
disclosure law effective January 1, 1998.
Number 0545
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to move the nomination of Philip
R. Volland to the Alaska Public Offices Commission forward. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
State Commission for Human Rights
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business was the
confirmation hearing of Ruth Gronlid Benson to the State Commission
for Human Rights.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Benson to tell the committee members about
herself and why she is interested in serving on the commission.
Number 0580
RUTH GRONLID BENSON, Appointee to the State Commission for Human
Rights, stated she is at the end of a long career in public health
nursing. Her work as a nurse has been entirely with human beings
and she would like to continue her interest in human beings and
their personal rights and political employments. It is a
fascinating field to be associated with and she looks forward to
working with the commission.
Number 0608
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Ms. Benson how an "Oly" from St. Olaf
College ended up in the Presbyterian Church.
MS. BENSON replied the Presbyterian Church was just two miles down
the road when her family moved to Fairbanks.
Number 0648
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated as a former Oly he will forgive her.
CHAIR JAMES called on a motion to move Ms. Benson's nomination
forward.
Number 0659
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN made a motion to move Ruth Gronlid Benson's
nomination to the State Commission for Human Rights forward. There
being no objection, it was so moved.
Alaska Public Offices Commission
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business was the
confirmation hearing of Kathleen Harrington to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Harrington to tell the committee members
about herself and why she wants to be a member of the commission.
Number 0687
KATHLEEN HARRINGTON, Appointee to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, stated she was asked by the Governor's office to
consider the appointment. When she learned about the work of the
commission and especially the passage of the new law, she
discovered it would be interesting and challenging. She said she
has an interest, in general, of electoral politics. She has given
the appointment a great deal of thought in terms of the time
commitment and is prepared to spend the necessary time to become
educated on the new law and apply it fairly and reasonably as it
evolves over the next couple of years.
Number 0734
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Ms. Harrington that it will be a challenge.
Number 0741
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Harrington, as an officer of the
court, how she would react to the enforcement of the law if she
felt it was unconstitutional.
Number 0765
MS. HARRINGTON replied, as a member of a regulatory body, the
obligation as a commissioner is to apply the law as written fairly
and reasonably. The courts are the place for disagreement of a law
in regards to its constitutionality. The staff of the commission
has a great interest in providing information to all parties about
the law so that there isn't any surprise and that people can comply
with the law as written.
Number 0812
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Harrington whether she knows who
nominated her to the Governor's office.
MS. HARRINGTON replied, "No."
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to move Ms. Harrington's
confirmation forward.
Number 0827
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to move the confirmation of
Kathleen Harrington to the Alaska Public Offices Commission
forward. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business was the
appointment of Dennis E. "Skip" Cook to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cook to tell the committee members about
himself and why he would like to serve on the committee.
Number 0846
DENNIS E. "SKIP" COOK, Appointee to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, stated he was born and raised in Fairbanks. He
pointed out that he is a lawyer and involved in a number of
community organizations. He was called by Chief Justice Warren
Matthews and asked whether he would serve on the committee. He had
not given it any thought previously, but is willing to serve for
many of the same reasons Mr. Volland stated earlier. He informed
the committee that he believes in public service and feels he can
contribute something. He said he is willing to spend the time
necessary to be of service. He informed the committee that he
believes in ethics in all fields of endeavors - legislative,
executive and judicial. Mr. Cook stated he has been involved in a
highly regulated profession for almost all of his entire work life
and he knows the need for ethics and the oversight of ethics.
Number 0949
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, for the record, he is a member of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
CHAIR JAMES noted it will be considered for the record.
CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to move Mr. Cook's nomination
forward.
Number 0959
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to move the confirmation of
Dennis E. "Skip" Cook to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
forward. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 315 - OPERATING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE
Number 0979
CHAIR JAMES announced the last order of business would be HB 315,
"An Act relating to operating appropriations for annual maintenance
and repair and periodic renewal and replacement of public buildings
and facilities; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by
Representative Mulder. Chair James called for an at-ease at 11:16
p.m. She called the meeting back to order t 11:24 p.m.
Number 0982
DENNIS DeWITT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Eldon
Mulder, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to
present HB 315. He informed the committee members that during the
interim he was staff to the Deferred Maintenance Task Force. He
explained that before the committee is a committee substitute for
a proposed committee substitute for HB 315.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN made a motion to adopt the proposed committee
substitute dated 2/16/98, Version B. There being no objection,
Version B was before the committee.
MR. DeWITT explained the proposed committee substitute for HB 315
focuses the need for budgeting maintenance in the annual budgeting
process. Section 1 amends the Executive Budget Act to require that
as part of the operational budget there should be line item
requests for maintenance needs. Section 2 defines maintenance
repair, renewal, replacement and operations. Section 3 provides
for a July 1, 1998, effective date so that they hopefully will look
at the preparation of the 2000 budget, which is done the fall of
1998.
MR. DeWITT explained, "The purpose of this is to focus the debate
on whether or not in the budget requests, and in the budget
discussions and the enactment of the budget, proper attention is
given to maintenance and that decisions are made as to whether or
not appropriations to an agency are clearly defined as what's for
program and what's for maintenance of facilities. Currently, many
of you have seen the process we use for budgeting, and in the
component that we'll look at, it'll include personnel services,
travel, contractual commodities, equipment, land buildings, grants,
claims and miscellaneous. Within that is the issue of maintenance
of facilities. The problem that the task force noted as it moved
around the state was that there were many managers that felt that
the legislature had not adequately funded the maintenance
component. There were many legislators who felt that indeed the
appropriation had been made for maintenance, but that program
managers opted to use that money to enhance their program rather
than for maintenance."
MR. DeWITT stated that if you separate the traditional activity for
the programs from the maintenance issue, then clearly the
discussion would be on what should be allocated toward maintenance
and what should be allocated toward program operations. When the
decision is made, there will be accountability both in terms of the
requests that are made and in terms of the appropriation that is
made at the legislative level as to what monies are to go for
program operation and what will go toward maintenance activities.
MR. DeWITT informed the committee that he worked with the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF). He
noted that the DOT/PF is a little different than most of the state
agencies because their primary function is maintenance and
operation. In the process proposed in the legislation, most of
their budget would be in the line item relative to maintenance and
operation. He said that would be different for most of the other
agencies. Mr. DeWitt stated that he appreciated the work that the
department did on the draft committee substitute, and he believes
that they both understand the bill. The debate that will be
created as a result of this action will be most interesting to
watch over the next couple of years.
Number 1224
CHAIR JAMES asked if the bill only includes public buildings and
not schools.
MR. DeWITT responded in the affirmative. He added that the schools
will continue to be funded through the foundation formula.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. DeWitt if he has given any thought to include
in the foundation formula a maintenance item.
MR. DeWITT explained that during the course of the task force,
there was several discussions on that issue. He said while he did
not research it, he was led to believe that they had already
indicated that the foundation formula included in it maintenance
dollars. He said he doesn't recall broad discussion, but he does
recall speaking to members of the task force at different points
and his recollection of most of the discussion was that making that
cut was more the responsibility of the board rather than the
legislature.
Number 1324
CHAIR JAMES referred to the renewal and replacement and asked if
there is currently authority for a sinking fund where allocations
could be made into that account for renewal and replacement so the
money would be there when it is needed.
MR. DeWITT explained there is real difficulty with renewal and
replacement funds because of the lapse date of operating funds.
That is an issue that is very difficult to get hold of when making
annual budgets and the dollars lapse if they're not encumbered or
expended. They don't have a sinking fund ability that he is aware
of.
CHAIR JAMES referred to the Administration planning to implement a
Rent Program and said they have to have a fund to put the rent
monies into for maintenance and so forth. She asked if that is a
fund that could be used for the same thing. She said, "If there is
a line item, as an example, for maintenance and it includes these
things. With renewal and replacement, you know, not necessarily
spend that money this year."
MR. DeWITT indicated he hasn't seen the proposal. He said if it
has an ability to hold those dollars beyond the lapse date, his
expectation of what would happen is those funds that were
allocated for long-term renewal and replacement would be, under our
system, extended into that fund. He said he believes that would
help with the lapse date problem.
Number 1475
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I'm still a little confused on [AS]
37.07.020. What facilities are we talking about? Facilities I was
told in the unincorporated borough - unincorporated area -
unincorporated borough -- I just haven't, in my mind, pictured what
facilities those are."
MR. DeWITT referred to [AS] 37.07.020 and said it is the section of
the Executive Budget Act that articulates the responsibilities of
the governor to prepare and submit to the legislature a budget. He
explained that what is being talked about with HB 315 is how
budgets are prepared by the Administration and transmitted to the
legislature.
Number 1554
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said it seems that the requirement makes sense
because it elevates the issue of annual and periodic maintenance so
that they don't get to a deferred maintenance problem. He referred
to the Northern Region and asked if, "Under a separate line item,
are you going to expect that they will delineate, for example, how
many maintenance dollars they'll need for rural airports, how many
they'll need for the Parks Highway or the road to Eagle or -- or is
that going to be lump sum? It seems to me that to eliminate the
finger pointing, a lump sum appropriation for maintenance is not
going to do it because that doesn't get you down to the facility
level or the transportation infrastructure level. How do you
envision that being done in a manner that really does eliminate the
finger pointing?"
MR. DeWITT explained that the prime mission of the DOT/PF is
basically maintenance and operation. To the extent that the
subcommittees, through their work and the full committee, make a
decision on how definitive that's going to be will have more or
less specific accountability. That is going to have to be left to
them working that through. Mr. DeWitt stated, "Currently, you can
as a legislature, articulate as many line items or separate
appropriations as you wish or as few. Typically, that's been done
with reference to different programs within an agency, different
divisions, different kinds of things. Annual fee in the various
budgets that are passed, one or just a few large appropriations or
you may see a multitude of very small appropriations - part of the
budgeting process. What we're hoping to get with this, and maybe
we could focus where it is a little more clear, again, let's use
the pioneer home system which clearly has buildings, which clearly
has a program operation and where we can clearly draw the line so
we can decide whether or not cost of care or cost of facilities has
been recognized either by the budget proposal or by the budget
enacted. There I think you get the clear -- you'll have six
buildings, you'll have activities for six buildings outlined in
components within an appropriation for maintenance and operation
and you'll have the program activities outlined. When you get to
the Department of Transportation, as we found in the task force
report, you can get down perhaps to the substation level where you
have for a general area, maintenance and operation needs and
appropriation, perhaps by component or perhaps by specific
appropriation. But it's very difficult to get an intersection or
'X' number of miles on the Park Highway from mile 'X' to mile 'Y'
in a budget document. This doesn't solve all the problems, but I
think it takes a step towards recognizing that. What I think we'll
find, unfortunately, in DOT is that this line item will become
their largest appropriation and however it's segregated by
component. But we will begin to see a smaller line item of the
program side operation of DOT. We may have some interesting
discoveries in terms of what other things they're doing or what the
importance is or, in terms of DOT, some program things that we have
not been addressing because maintenance and operation has been
their primary thrusts -- wherein I think other departments will
find that the program has been the primary thrust, but maintenance
and operation has not been."
Number 1859
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to rents where DOT/PF charges off to
a different agency the amount of money necessary to do the
maintenance and asked which agency will be required to delineate
the maintenance cost. He asked if it would be the agency pay the
rent or the agency collecting the rent.
MR. DeWITT said, "We currently appropriate, for the most part, to
agencies the money to deal with their facility. They then contract
through a reimbursable services agreement to DOT/PF, or sometimes
they do it on their own, to come in and do the work. So my
expectation is that the -- if it were a perfect world and I were
running it, I would suggest that the cost of operation for the
agency be funded through that agency's appropriation and then they
contract to have services done, whether they purchase it from DOT
or an outside contractor, or do it internally with their own
maintenance people."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON discussed charging costs off to several
different agencies and said his concern is that he doesn't want
what is being put into law to get in the way of dealing with real
facility costs that might be dealt with in the rental concept.
MR. DeWITT said he doesn't think that'll be the case. He said this
can certainly begin to highlight the rent number to the extent that
they meet their rent for space utilized in the State Office
Building. He said it would include heat, lights, snow plowing, and
fixing the steps as well as the parking places. He said it would
be allocated as it would be for any other commercial building.
Through the Administration there will be some arguments about
whether the rent number is right or not right, or whether it's fair
or not fair.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he is less concerned about the agency
end than he is about the straightjacket that may be put upon DOT
who owns the State Office Building and whether or not that
straightjacket will give them the latitude to institute that kind
of a program.
MR. DeWITT said he doesn't see that to be a problem.
Number 2229
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. DeWitt if the maintenance of these building
would be in the same line item as the maintenance of roads and
airports.
MR. DeWITT responded that it would be a line item, but he expects
it would not be the same line item. It should be separated out.
Mr. DeWitt explained, "The maintenance and operation of a building
can be accomplished either through the owner -- if it's the agency
we're appropriating to, using that money to take care of window
seals and whatever, or it can be accomplished by paying rent to the
agency that owns the building." He referred to the rent concept
and said he would expect that they could fund rents through this
particular line item. Mr. DeWitt pointed out that it is a pilot
program and he thinks those are some of the questions that will get
answered. He said the money appropriated would go to the agency
and be RSA(ed) either to DOT or through contractual services to
someone else, or it would be done by the people that work there.
TAPE 98-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. DeWITT stated there is some balancing that will naturally occur
in the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated, "We have considerable difficulties in
our efforts to micro manage the Administration and their budgets."
He asked what the consequences would be if the agency put forth a
very adequate maintenance budget and the legislature doesn't fund
it.
CHAIR JAMES responded, "Well then the buck stops here. That's the
whole issue."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "So all the planning process just goes
up in smoke and we're back where we're at now?"
CHAIR JAMES responded that she thinks Representative Vezey is
right. She said that is the problem the legislature has when
setting the appropriation process. There is no guarantee of the
appropriation until it has gone through the legislative process.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what if the legislature does appropriate
the money and the Administration uses the authority that the
legislature has given them to transfer that money.
Number 0148
MR. DeWITT explained that when separate appropriations are used,
agencies cannot move money across appropriations. They can move it
across components within an appropriation. He said if there is an
agreement to put $100,000 in maintenance for the pioneers home
buildings, it would be inappropriate and probably illegal to hire
an activities director with that money. Mr. DeWitt explained, "The
way we currently budget, you can sort of have that discussion and
you make the appropriation in one line item. All you have to do is
move it from one component of that appropriation to another
component. It's quite legal and quite easy to do and that's where
the frustration is in terms of being able to assign accountability.
The accountability that will be assigned will be in terms of the
governor's budget coming to the legislature which will specify what
they believe is necessary for programs and what they believe is
necessary for maintenance. And then the legislature's response, in
terms of what if (indisc.), in terms of how it responds to those
numbers."
Number 0338
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "Within and an appropriation for
maintenance, and we see this daily around here, we don't control -
part of that goes to buying a computer to do the computerized
maintenance program which happens to be used for that 2 percent of
the time and 98 percent for social schedules of the Administrative
Department or whatever. We don't control whether that goes for
bricks an mortar or whether it goes for exempt personnel or
nonexempt personnel. Our ability to micro manage has been a dismal
failure in the past, I'm sure it will be in the future. Where is
the handle? I don't quite understand what we think we're really
controlling here."
MR. DeWITT responded, "There is the ability to articulate what it
is the legislature would like to have done with the money spent,
and if it is appropriated in a general appropriation as I showed
you - how we do it now - you come back the next year and you have
another fight over whether you should have -- and again let's use
larger issues because certain the finite issues are very very
difficult, whether or not the money was used to maintain a building
or whether the money was used to hire an activity director. In our
current strategy, we basically then go back and say, 'You shouldn't
have done that,' and you try and put more line items in the budget
and you could still move around because the maintenance components
is still somewhat within the same budget. There is no question in
my mind that there will be those times when we buy a computer that
is 2 percent for maintenance and 98 percent for other. And those
are the arguments that need to be had in the subcommittee and the
full committee. This simply allows us, I think, a better budget
tool in terms of the input that's coming in to identify what's
maintenance and the output from the legislature that identifies
what we intended for maintenance and we intended for programs. Is
it perfect? No. Will we get into scraps and arguments about
whether that maintenance item was fully maintenance or had a little
program component in it. No question in my mind, we will, but I
think we'll reduce the arguments and differences to an area where
there is a strong focus on whether maintenance is occurring.
Decisions will have to be made on whether or not we're going to
fund maintenance. And there is no way we can force funding or for
that matter force spending, but at least we'll be able to identify
and hold folks accountable and the voters will make their choices
of which folks they want to be accountable."
Number 0588
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the way he reads the language in the
bill, there will be three new line items. One is for facility
operations, one is for maintenance and repair, and one for renewal
and replacement. He said it seems to him that if we are trying to
delineate a category of maintenance, it should say that
specifically rather than having three subitems.
CHAIR JAMES said it is her understanding that (8), (9) and (10) are
only definitions as opposed to line items.
MR. DeWITT said that is correct. He said as he reads them, they
will be prepared and presented separately from the appropriation in
(a). He noted that the intent was that those three things would be
identified for a separate appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked is it is one lump or in three
separate items. Representative Berkowitz said "The way it's
written is 'proposed annual appropriations' and it itemizes 1, 2
and 3 - 'must be presented separately.' What we're trying to do is
have a maintenance line item. Is that correct?"
MR. DeWITT responded, "I think it says, 'separately from
appropriations for other proposed operating expenditures by the
agency.' So as I read it, as the intent was, as the drafter told
me it worked, and again it's (indisc.). There are these three will
be funded separately from the rest of it and I think that could
read as either 1 or 3 I suppose. Frankly, from the perspective of
where we're going, I'm not sure that having three separate would be
disastrous, although I think at least in the early going, one would
be easier to work with because we're taking a new step that's going
to require some looks at new accounting and some different
responses."
Number 0759
CHAIR JAMES noted there is back up and an opportunity for footnotes
in the budget. She stated that it appears to her that facility
operations, maintenance and repair, and renewal and replacement,
all being separate things that are done, it appears that the money
could be used amongst them.
MR. DeWITT responded that he believes that's true.
CHAIR JAMES stated that she would think that the footnote would be
the delineation of what those numbers are calculated and not
necessarily what those number are actually.
MR. DeWITT informed the committee that he envisions seeing three
components in an appropriation, one for each. He said he hasn't
viewed it as three separate appropriations. In listening to
Representative Berkowitz's interpretation, he thinks it is valid in
that they could come in three separate as in one with three
components. Mr. DeWitt said he thinks the operative issue is that
it is separate from the other appropriations in the operating
budget.
Number 0857
JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor, came before the committee. He
stated he would like to express agreement with Representative Vezey
about micro management of the budget and he is glad to hear that
they are in agreement on that subject. He informed the committee
that he has discussed the legislation with Annalee McConnell,
Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Kreinheder
explained that they are not taking a formal position for or against
the legislation. He said they are in full support of the overall
goal of the bill which is adequate maintenance for state
facilities. The question is, "Is this best approach to get there?"
He stated the most important problem is not how the money is
budgeted, it's the lack of money. When budgets are reduced or
inflation is absorbed as it has been, the most important thing is
preserving services to the public. Unfortunately, building
maintenance is one of those things you can get away with short
funding for awhile until it catches up to you. He said the
intention is to address this issue in more detail when the
legislation gets to the Finance Committee. He noted they don't
have an objection to moving the bill.
Number 0980
CHAIR JAMES said you have to admit that for years maintenance has
not been addressed in the proper way that it should be. Nowhere
have they ever dealt with renewal and replacement except in the
capital budget. She said she takes the position that if we can't
take care of our buildings, they should be sold and we should lease
them back from a private individual.
MR. KREINHEDER referred to the question of would this legislation
hinder our efforts on this rental structure that we're developing
and said he hasn't thought of that, but he is fairly confident that
it would not be a problem in that regard.
Number 1085
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move CSHB 315, Version B,
dated 2/16/98, out of committee with individual recommendations and
with the attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
315(STA) moved out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 313 - PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT
Number 1085
CHAIR JAMES informed the committee members that it has been brought
to her attention that there was a fiscal note for HB 313, which was
heard earlier in the meeting. She said the fiscal note, from the
Department of Education, wasn't in her file. It is for $88.3. She
said she would like a motion to make that part of the bill that was
moved.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said, "So moved." There being no objection,
the fiscal note moved with the bill.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1136
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 12:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|