Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/18/2014 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB343 | |
| HB371 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 343 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 371 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2014
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Doug Isaacson, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 343
"An Act relating to the construction, major rehabilitation, and
deferred maintenance of state agency public buildings based on
standardized designs; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 371
"An Act providing for the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities to hold the surface estate of certain state
land; relating to the transfer of certain state land and
materials from the Department of Natural Resources to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the
construction or maintenance of the state highway system, state
airports, and state public buildings and facilities; relating to
the lease or sale of certain marine or harbor facilities;
relating to the lease or disposal by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities of rights-of-way, property
interests, or improvements that are no longer required; relating
to the grant of certain easements over submerged state land to
the federal government; relating to the transfer of certain
maintenance stations on the James Dalton Highway to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; relating to
the conveyance of land for right-of-way purposes from the Alaska
Railroad Corporation to the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 343
SHORT TITLE: STATE BUILDINGS: CONSTRUCTION & MAINT.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
02/26/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/26/14 (H) TRA, STA
03/13/14 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/13/14 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/18/14 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 371
SHORT TITLE: STATE LAND AND MATERIALS
SPONSOR(s): TRANSPORTATION BY REQUEST
03/10/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/14 (H) TRA, RES
03/11/14 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/11/14 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/14 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/18/14 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
VASILIOS GIALOPSOS, Staff
Representative Charisse Millett
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative
Charisse Millett, prime sponsor of HB 243.
KIM RICE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 343.
CHRISTOPHER HODGIN, P.E.
Program Manager; Energy Office
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 343.
DAVE KEMP, P.E.
Engineer, Statewide Facilities
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 343.
TOM MAYER, Division Director
Division of General Services
Central Office
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 343.
STACY SHUBERT, Director
Governmental Affairs
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint presentation on AHFC
& Public Facilities Energy Use during the discussion of HB 343.
RYAN COLGAN, Chief Programs Officer
Cold Climate Housing Research Center
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of cold
climate.
DUSTIN MADDEN, Policy Researcher
Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint during the
discussion of HB 343.
BRYAN BUTCHER, Executive Director/Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 343.
JOHN BENNETT, Right-of-way Chief
Northern Region
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 371.
SEAN LYNCH, Assistant Attorney General
Transportation Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 371.
DICK MYLIUS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 371.
JOHN ANDERSON, Operations Officer
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 343.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:10:06 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives Gattis,
Isaacson, Feige, Lynn, and P. Wilson were present at the call to
order. Representatives Johnson and Kreiss-Tomkins arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
CHAIR P. WILSON congratulated the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities since Anchorage was just named the best cargo
airport in North America.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 343-STATE BUILDINGS: CONSTRUCTION & MAINT.
1:12:19 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 343, "An Act relating to the construction,
major rehabilitation, and deferred maintenance of state agency
public buildings based on standardized designs; and providing
for an effective date."
1:12:45 PM
VASILIOS GIALOPSOS, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett,
Alaska State Legislature, stated that HB 343 represents the
collaboration between the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC) and other stakeholder groups. The bill also builds upon
the legislature's success in crafting a state energy policy. He
explained that in lean economic times tradeoffs are made between
programs that affect Alaskans or infrastructure. The sponsor
hopes HB 343 will foster dialogue on funding for deferred
maintenance during major construction and major rehabilitation
of state-owned buildings and the overall effect of deferred
maintenance costs on all state programs. The sponsor
anticipates significant changes to the bill but hopes the
committee will listen to the expertise; in particular, by the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, the Cold
Climate Housing Research Center, and the AHFC. He related the
sponsor believes a shift in the state's focus from inputs to
outcomes means being able to use cost-effective technology
available today. This means the state shouldn't have to come
back in five years to fix mistakes made during building
construction.
1:17:06 PM
DAVE KEMP, P.E.; Engineer, Statewide Facilities, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), began his
presentation. He stated that the Statewide Public Facilities
(SWPF) provides project management services for the planning,
design, and construction for new and renovated vertical
buildings. He pointed out a photograph of the Department of
Labor & Workforce Development - AVTEC - Alaska's Institute of
Technology Dormitory in Seward [slide 2].
1:17:43 PM
MR. KEMP described the statewide public facilities' functions
[slide 3]. He read AS 35.10.190(a): The department shall
coordinate the procurement of physical facilities for the state
to insure the greatest cost savings of planning, design, and
contractual techniques. He stated that this shop has 11
professional engineers, three licensed architects, two project
manager professionals, and four engineers-in-training (EITs).
CHRISTOPHER HODGIN, P.E. Program Manager, Energy Office,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
outlined the energy savings performance contracting program
[slide 4]. He said he works with state agencies in an effort to
make state facilities more energy efficient. He described the
bill as a method for accomplishing energy improvement projects
that are funded by the energy savings from the projects. Since
2011, the state has achieved combined energy cost savings
greater than $2.1 million per year on projects in over 40
facilities statewide. He stated that the program is ongoing
with several projects in development, implementation, and
construction phases at any given time. The energy savings
office has worked with the Department of Corrections, the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities - Northern
Region, and Mount Edgecombe High School in Sitka through the
Department of Education and Early Development.
1:19:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS suggested that the state owns far more
than 40 buildings. She expressed an interest in schools and
asked whether the DOT&PF participates in new schools. Although
this program began in 2011, she wondered if the energy office
has been using cost savings during the design, planning, and
contractual techniques when constructing new schools in in the
Matanuska-Susitna valley.
MR. KEMP answered that the DOT&PF does not have any authority
over public school buildings. In further response to a
question, Mr. Kemp answered that the local school boards and
communities have the authority and purview over school
buildings.
1:21:46 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON understood schools were a local issue. She
wondered a legislative change would be necessary to change this.
MR. KEMP understood a similar bill has been introduced that
would accomplish this [HB 341].
1:22:45 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON said she was familiar with the weatherization
programs and asked whether this process is similar to that
program.
MR. HODGIN answered yes. He explained that when the DOT&PF uses
its energy performance contracting program, an investment grade
energy audit is performed to conduct an in-depth review of the
facility to assess the heating, mechanical, electrical, windows,
walls, and building envelope system. The department receives
the results with the best cost savings measures from the
analysis. In response to a question, Mr. Hodgin indicated the
energy auditors are private companies. He related that the
department has a term contract with Cue Energy Services Ltd.
1:24:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS expressed concern about the "wants and
needs" in her district. She said that some people think
architects are the benefactors of the larger buildings. She
suggested the end result is that the legislature and the
district want quality buildings designed for the specific area
and region of the state. She acknowledged that the state pays
energy and deferred maintenance and should do a better job.
CHAIR P. WILSON solicited input from testifiers on suggested
statute changes since the goal is to achieve efficiency and
energy savings.
MR. KEMP highlighted the energy savings performance contracting
that the legislature required the department to undergo as being
one "shining star". The department has been reviewing older
buildings that were built 30-40 years ago since the technology
has changed significantly since then. He said this program has
been saving the state over $2 million per year.
1:27:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked how many of the 40 public
buildings still need improvements. He further asked whether
these improvements are a result of the Alaska Sustainable Energy
Act. Finally, he asked whether the department has been doing
this in conjunction with AHFC or any other department.
1:28:27 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON also asked how many public facilities the state
has in total.
Mr. HODGIN was unsure of the exact number of public facilities.
He referred to the 2011 master building inventory list and
indicated approximately 167 state facilities were over 10,000
square feet. He acknowledged many more facilities are owned by
agencies that are less than 10,000 square feet.
MR. KEMP said it would also depend on the definition of public
facilities since municipalities and school districts have
facilities. Further, DOT&PF doesn't manage, design, or track
all facilities. He offered to provide the figures to the
committee ranging from a small utility building to an 80,000
square-foot office building.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered to distribute the information.
1:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he appreciated the clarification.
He suggested it would also be helpful to know the number of
buildings the department has been involved in that relate to
municipalities.
1:31:48 PM
MR. HODGINS, in response to Representative Isaacson's earlier
question on the role the Alaska Sustainability Act (ASA) has
played, responded that it absolutely did. In 2010, the ASA was
enrolled and since then his office has been working closely with
the agencies and the AHFC, in particular, on investment grade
energy audits so the AHFC can help fund the projects.
1:32:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS referred to 40 statewide public facilities
for which the department has obtained energy savings. She asked
for further clarification on the figure.
MR. HODGINS answered that the aforementioned 40 public
facilities represent the public facilities that the department
has accomplished through the energy savings program. The
projects include ones in the DOT&PF, the DEED, and the
Department of Corrections. Of course, the DOT&PF's facilities
include many more than the 40 buildings the program has assisted
since it operates maintenance shops and storage buildings, too.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS recapped that the department has 40
facilities that garnered $2.1 million in savings [per year], but
acknowledged the department has many more buildings.
MR. KEMP clarified that the energy savings performance
contracting has been focused on all buildings not just DOT&PF's
buildings. He said that the DOT&PF moves forward with any state
agency who would like to have the audits done and participate in
the program with AHFC.
1:35:20 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the Department of Administration
(DOA) selects the projects or if the DOT&PF makes the selection.
MR. HODGINS answered that it is a combination of methods. The
DOA identifies which facilities use more energy and the DOT&PF
works with the DOA to determine whether the project would be a
good candidate for the energy savings performance project. In
other instances, the department uses a state database to
identify some energy use and prioritizes accordingly.
1:36:53 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for the average cost of the audit.
MR. HODGIN answered that the energy audit cost ranges from 25 to
35 cents per square foot. He agreed the state pays for the
energy audit through departmental funds or by using the AHFC's
loan program.
1:37:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked whether the DOT&PF does energy
audits prior to construction in order to build more energy
efficient buildings.
MR. KEMP answered that he will cover this a bit during the
presentation. However, Senate Bill 220, which passed the
legislature in 2010 [26th Legislature] requires the department
to follow national standards for energy efficiency. The
department must consider all types of energy efficiency, energy
savings, options, as well as ways to weatherize. He confirmed
that the DOT&PF currently follows the national standards for
energy efficiency. Mr. Hodgin's program has been in charge of
making energy efficiency improvements in older buildings, he
said.
1:39:20 PM
MR. HODGIN reported that the cost of audit is repaid through
energy cost savings [slide 5]. He explained that under AS
44.42.067 (b-c), as part of the Alaska Sustainability Act,
requires retrofitting and new construction to meet the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers
{ASHRAE) 90.1, Energy Standards for Buildings. This standard
has been adopted by most states, including Alaska, and it
provides energy efficiency requirements for the design and
construction of buildings. The nature of this standard is that
it includes both prescriptive and performance-based requirements
allowing flexibility in design approaches. Additionally, it
provides energy efficiency performance requirements for building
envelope and walls, heating and ventilation systems, interior
and exterior lighting, power systems, and more. He described
this as a continuously evolving standard with over 100
professionals working to update the standard every few years.
1:41:09 PM
MR. KEMP emphasized the importance of having a prescriptive and
performance based standard, especially in Alaska since the
DOT&PF plans, designs, and constructs projects from Ketchikan to
Nome. The state has a wide range of climate conditions so the
department's standards must be flexible enough for DOT&PF to use
the best technology for each specific location in Alaska. He
concluded that this is what ASHRAE 90.1, does.
MR. KEMP said the next slide entitled "Capital Improvement
Projects in Alaska" clarifies who has responsibility in Alaska.
The large circle represents the entire state, including school
districts and schools that fall within and outside the circle
representing the State of Alaska, the AHFC, the Alaska Court
System, and the University of Alaska. Another circle depicts
the statewide public facilities and various state agencies. His
agency is in charge of the construction, planning, design and
construction of facilities for agencies within this inner
circle.
1:42:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked for clarification on where the DOA
falls in terms of the circle.
MR. KEMP said the DOT&PF gives the DOA authorization to perform
projects on an authority basis.
1:43:36 PM
KIM RICE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), pointed out that this slide [slide
6] refers to capital projects, but not to maintenance costs.
She acknowledged that the department should also create a slide
for maintenance costs, but maintenance is managed by individual
departments. She emphasized that the DOA's primary function is
space, space standards, and allocation among the departments.
Most of the work on capital projects for contracting is done by
a delegation from the DOT&PF. The DOT&PF performs the standards
for contracting. She estimated that the DOT&PF has
approximately 750 buildings if every shed and maintenance
facility were counted. She surmised that thousands of public
buildings exist in the state, but the statewide public
facilities group handles capital programs for design and
construction of facilities. She characterized it as being the
consultant agency that helps other agencies through the process,
including fish hatcheries and sand storage buildings.
1:45:11 PM
MR. KEMP explained that the information on the next slide,
entitled "Public Buildings in Alaska" has already been discussed
in terms of the wide variety of facilities in Alaska [slide 7].
For example, LED lights are very appropriate for communities
with high fuel costs since the cost of LED lighting is high, but
in other locations that sustain lower fuel costs, it may not
make sense. This illustrates the type of flexibility that the
department needs to "fit" the technology to the location within
the state.
1:46:11 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON reiterated that the department needs
flexibility.
MR. KEMP answered that the statutes accomplish the AHFC's white
paper and House Bill [343] will direct the department. The
problem has been the terminology since it could take a huge
effort to develop a standard design that will work from
Ketchikan to Nome or for a crime lab or a State Library Archive
and Museum (SLAM) project.
1:47:21 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act
Annual Report in members' packets. She asked if Mr. Kemp helped
prepare the report.
MR. KEMP answered yes; that the aforementioned report is
prepared by the Statewide Public Facilities office. In further
response to a question, he agreed it contains information on
progress made, which will be updated annually.
1:48:10 PM
TOM MAYER, Division Director, Division of General Services,
Central Office, Department of Administration (DOA), said the
department has reviewed the bill and would like to outline some
of the challenges this bill presents for the division. The
division manages multiple state-owned buildings; however, as
written, this bill will affect buildings operated by multiple
agencies from airports to health centers, fish hatcheries to
pioneer homes. Each building in the state's portfolio has a
specific purpose, which varies greatly in terms of age,
condition and systems, including electrical and plumbing. Due
to varying needs across the state and the varying roles the
buildings play for state agencies, the public, and their
communities, what is best for one region may not be recommended
for another community due to climatic conditions.
MR. MAYER said it would be very challenging to establishment
detailed specifications that would apply to all regions across
the state. In practical terms, standardization could result in
DOT&PF needing developing hundreds of detailed specifications
for building systems with DOA and other agencies attempting to
balance the tension between applying a set standard for a
deferred maintenance project on existing structures while
finding the best dollar approach to replacing outdated systems.
As technology and building techniques change, specifications
need continual evaluation and updates. This type of standard
based evaluation represents a cost to the state for any agency
that needs space. He estimated costs for the Division of
General Services is $614,000 annually. The unknown cost that
can't be estimated at this time is the cost of a building
component based on an unknown design that has not yet been
created by DOT&PF.
MR. MAYER stated that the intent of this bill is commendable but
the solution is already in place. He explained that the goal
for procurement and construction is to be as efficient as
possible with state funds. For example, the original estimate
for a new DNR Geological Materials Center building was $45
million, but with careful analysis the DOA reached agreement
with the purchase of the old Sam's Club building on Penland
Parkway in Anchorage for $16 million, with Wal-Mart paying $2.5
million of the costs. Including the current remodel costs, the
overall total cost will be $24 million or a cost savings of over
$20 million. Additionally, the DNR will be able to take
occupancy this fall many years ahead of schedule. The
department strives for an efficient well-designed building for a
specific site and region as the best overall cost Regardless of
the project. He reported that best practices are already in use
with in-house design experts and design consultants to ensure
new construction and renovation projects meet ASHRAE 90.1. The
guidelines set minimums for energy requirement designs, he said.
1:52:07 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for the length of time this process has
been in use.
MR. MAYER answered that the Public Building Fund (PBF) has been
in place since 2003. The department manages 20 buildings, of
which 14 are in the PBF, and the remaining 5 are in the Non-
Public Building fund (NPBF). Those buildings include warehouse
types of facilities, which are not traditional office buildings.
MR. MAYER, in response to a question, answered that
approximately 30 people are involved in this process statewide,
including for maintenance, management, and to perform
solicitations for the design.
1:54:07 PM
STACY SHUBERT, Director, Governmental Affairs, Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) noted that in 2008 the legislature
funded AHFC's weatherization and home energy rebate programs.
She related that to a lesser extent AHFC is also known for its
work with public facilities and energy use. She indicated her
presentation will include references to the case study of AHFC's
headquarters building.
1:54:32 PM
JOHN ANDERSON, Operations Officer, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC), began his presentation. He noted that AHFC
was selected as a consultant. In 2010, with passage of Senate
Bill 220 the Revolving Loan Fund was created with a $250 million
appropriation. At the same time, AHFC was working with the
DOT&PF and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to develop plans to
use the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
funds [slide 2]. The AHFC developed a process and created a
team to begin implement the program. The goal was to assess the
public facility energy use.
MR. ANDERSON added that the AHFC also created the Alaska
Retrofit Information System (ARIS) that also ties into its
weatherization and rebate program [slide 3]. This has now
become the clearinghouse or depository for all the data. The
DOT&PF uses it and anyone can request to use it, he said.
1:56:22 PM
MR. ANDERSON said other reasons the AHFC is currently involved
in public buildings include the Home Energy Rating System (HERS)
and Building Energy Efficiency Standard (BEES) [slide 4]. He
related that the AHFC is statutorily required to maintain energy
codes and building codes within AHFC when its funds are being
used. The AHFC uses AkWarm software for this process. In fact,
most of the audits contain AkWarm files and are all listed in
the AHFC's retrofit information system. He reported that the
database contains over 75,000 unique records.
MR. ANDERSON related that the technical service provider is
comprised of 40-50 professionals, including certified energy
auditors [slide 5]. The team benchmarked as many facilities as
possible, totaling 1,200 facilities statewide. He described
benchmarking as compiling basic building information, including
attempting to collect two years of energy data. The team
selected the highest energy users based on the data.
Subsequently, AHFC conducted 327 ASHRAE investment grade audits.
In response to a question, Mr. Anderson defined investment grade
audits as audits that provide a detailed look at the facility,
representing a national standard that AHFC adopted from ASHRAE.
He explained that this audit "dives in" and examines all aspects
of the building, including examining controls and all components
and makes recommendations for the best energy improvements.
1:58:48 PM
MR. ANDERSON related each of the 327 audits consist of
approximately 50-70 pages and cost a total of $7.2 million.
Additionally, the AHFC provided another $1 million to the
university system to conduct audits. At the same time, the
DOT&PF had $10 million in ARRA funds for audits.
MS. SCHUBERT reported that all of the AHFC's audits are posted
on the agency's website so members can access the data.
MR. ANDERSON related that the 327 buildings also resulted in
approximately $14.7 million in energy savings. He estimated
over 5,000 statewide public facilities exist, including state,
schools, cities, and boroughs. He estimated approximately 184
of the 479 schools statewide were audited [slide 6].
2:00:49 PM
MR. ANDERSON said the AHFC took advantage of a great opportunity
to make improvements to its own building [slide 7]. In 2011,
the AHFC purchased its headquarters following a 14-year lease.
The agency immediately began implementing efficiency measures
including lighting and heating, as well as completing a major
roof repair. Additionally, the AHFC has begun to replace
exterior lighting and some of its outdated control systems. He
estimated that based on improvements, AHFC has reduced gas use
by 40 percent and electric by 30 percent. He said that through
the audit process, benchmarking, collaboration, and "white
paper" the agency asked entities to make recommendations to move
forward. He has reviewed these recommendations, which included
suggestions for appropriately-size new buildings, to establish a
level of accountability, to meter and track energy use data, and
to consolidate facility use where possible [slide 8]. He said
AHFC believes, in particular, in the smaller communities that
consolidation makes more sense such as housing a post office and
school in one building.
2:02:31 PM
MR. ANDERSON discussed recommendations for the building design
process [slide 10]. He understood this could be construed as
controversial, but the "white paper" showed the need to consider
life-cycle costing. This process determines whether to install
better pumps that can last longer than 30 years and whether the
cost to benefit ratio make sense. Especially in rural Alaska,
with its high energy costs, designers should consider building
use, system sizes, controlled ventilation, and lighting to
maximize efficiency. Further, designers should reduce excessive
glass and maximize daylight with the orientation of the school
or other building. Additionally, the commissioning aspect
includes commissioning, retro-commissioning and ongoing
commissioning. In response to a question, Mr. Anderson defined
commissioning as essentially consisting of an audit of the
constructed facility. For example, commissioning would consider
whether the building was operating properly and if things
installed correctly. The audit process highlighted that
commissioning was often not done so systems were not balanced
properly. Retro-commissioning occurs later and would review
plans and drawings to determine if the building was designed
properly. If not, rebalancing and other improvements have been
found to reap benefits. Interestingly, the AHFC discovered that
there wasn't any correlation between the age of a building and
energy use. For example, two similar schools were built in
adjacent communities but one facility used five times the
energy. The AHFC audited some buildings that were at least 30
years old.
2:05:34 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the audits are only performed on
existing buildings.
MR. ANDERSON answered yes.
2:05:49 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the AHFC discusses these issues
when new buildings are being built.
MR. ANDERSON answered that AHFC believes it brings a unique
perspective and as consultants are willing to be part of the
conversation.
2:06:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked if anyone asking for assistance.
MR. ANDERSON answered yes; the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities, the Alaska Vocational Technical Center
(AVTEC), and several of the schools have requested AHFC's
assistance. He explained that the AHFC works closely with the
DOT&PF. Based on the AHFC's audit process some energy
efficiency projects have been completed with other funding. The
organization either found in-house funds, bonding, or arranged
for other financing, he said.
2:07:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS noted challenges, such that she has
observed some people open windows in cold climates. She also
pointed out that highly technical equipment has sometimes been
installed but people often don't know how to operate or fix it.
For example, she has seen people "rip out" some equipment and
put in a simple value. Additionally, she noticed some smoke
alarms were not working in some buildings. She recalled the
DEED has used less insulation in order to enhance the interior
size of their buildings. She hoped that improvements in energy
efficiency will happen.
MS. SHUBERT responded that one of AHFC's recommendations in its
"white paper" is to property train maintenance staff. These
buildings require proactive management and maintenance to ensure
equipment is being appropriately controlled. One of the things
AHFC does in its own building is to meter the building. For
example, employees actively monitor whether the lights come on
at 2 a.m.
2:10:25 PM
RYAN COLGAN, Chief Programs Officer, Cold Climate Housing
Research Center, explained the Cold Climate Housing Research
Center (CCHRC) is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization formed by
the Alaska State Homebuilding Association (ASHBA) to address the
challenges of building in Alaska's extreme environment through
applied research, policy research, design consulting and other
means [[slide 1].
MR. COLGAN referred to a familiar image of a map of Alaska
superimposed on the Lower 48. This image illustrates how remote
and diverse the communities of Alaska, which is important in
terms of standards. He characterized the necessary approach as
being not focused on the "cookie cutter" but on the cookie
recipe. Another factor to consider in Alaska is the logistics
since it is difficult to get to construction sites in many
places [slide 3]. In addition, work itself can be difficult due
to the environment [slide 4].
MR. COLGAN said one of Alaska's assets is that the state
consists of problem solvers, which is inherent in its people.
In fact, it is necessary to problem solve in order to survive in
parts of Alaska [slides 5-6].
2:13:37 PM
MR. COLGAN turned to slide 7, entitled "How does CCHRC Solve
Problems?" The CCHRC first works to understand the problem,
gathers information, and identifies solutions. He showed some
slides that illustrate the types of problems encountered [slides
7-9].
MR. COLGAN said that CCHRC gathers information through peers,
those who have researched and found solutions, and through
advanced modeling [as shown on the top of slide 11]. This slide
shows the mobile test lab and the research testing facility
[slide 11].
MR. COLGAN explained that CCHRC has identified several unique
wall solutions to meet and exceed building standards and address
unique challenges that stem from Alaska's extreme climate [slide
12].
2:15:10 PM
MR. COLGAN turned to the next slice, which illustrates how CCHRC
incorporates solutions into designs [slides 13-14]. For
example, this shows the sustainable village at UAF, and
prototypes at Quinhagak and Anaktuvuk Pass. The CCHRC helps
find solutions for heating, ventilation, water, and wastewater.
MR. COLGAN reported that CCHRC communicates with end users and
has about 50,000 hits per year on its website, 20,000 hits per
year on its blog for homeowners, and 200,000 views on the
website podcasts. The CCHRC works with Alaskans and either
deliver or work with partners to provide over 50 classes per
year [slides 16-17].
MR. COLGAN turned to demonstration projects that show what can
be accomplished [slide 18-19]. He then returned to the question
of how CCHRC solves problems [slide 20]. He related that to
understand the problem, CCHRC recognizes that high energy costs
exist in some public facilities and with budget deficit can
create long-term burdens for the state. The agencies have
reported today that a significant amount of information has been
gathered through benchmark, investment grade audits and by
consulting with numerous experts to produce the "white paper" on
public facilities. The state has also been working to identify
solutions using the revolving loan program, holding
conversations about standards, and recognizing that it is hard
to implement the standard without involving multiple-
stakeholders.
DUSTIN MADDEN, Policy Researcher, Cold Climate Housing Research
Center (CCHRC), offered a presentation that covers some history
about energy in Alaska. In the 1970s natural gas use lessened,
primarily due to energy codes that required "2x6" wall
construction and energy heel trusses [slide 21]. In the early
1990s usage reached a plateau until the AHFC instituted a
building energy efficiency standard, which like ASHRAE 90.1 has
a prescriptive performance. The graph illustrates that energy
use in Alaska has continued to decrease as the building
efficiency standard has become more widespread and reflects the
current technology of the industry [slide 21]. He observed that
energy standards over time have proven effective.
2:20:50 PM
MR. MADDEN highlighted the pie chart that shows the energy use
for public schools in Alaska with about 75 percent of energy use
due to space heating. He reported that many schools have
received energy audits or have been benchmarked. Over half of
the 75 percent of energy use for space heating is lost through
ventilation and air leakage. He reported that heating outside
air at minus 20 degree air to 70 degrees for indoor comfort uses
considerable energy. It's important that energy efficiency is
well managed [slide 23].
MR. MADDEN explained the graph with energy efficiency depicted
on the "y" axis and the total annual ventilation is shown on "x"
axis [slide 24]. He acknowledged that some older buildings
often performed better than newer buildings; however, the CCHRC
did find that one driver of space heating energy efficiency was
the ventilation rate. He identified the ventilation rate as one
ingredient of the "cookie" recipe that can be standardized to
increase efficiency. Many systems are quite complex for
controlling ventilation, such as direct digital control systems
so having a more standard set of these systems will increase the
effectiveness of the systems used and operated throughout
Alaska. Factors such as standardization of ventilation,
depending on the design depending on the number of zones and the
equipment used, have the potential to save energy and reduce
operating costs. In response to a question, Mr. Madden
explained that the "DHW" on slide 22 refers to "domestic hot
water."
2:24:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the graph [on slide
24] and asked what outlier was close to 40 billion cubic feet of
air.
MR. MADDEN was unsure. He offered to look it up and provide it
to the committee. In further response to a question, he
answered that "HDD" stands for "heating degree days."
2:25:40 PM
BRYAN BUTCHER, Executive Director/Chief Executive Officer,
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), added that energy
efficiency is what AHFC does.
CHAIR P. WILSON said this presentation has helped the committee
get a handle on the energy efficiency issues. She suggested it
might be necessary to get rid of the silos and work more
cooperatively to address these issues.
[HB 343 was held over.]
2:27:08 PM
HB 371-STATE LAND AND MATERIALS
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 371, "An Act providing for the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to hold the surface estate
of certain state land; relating to the transfer of certain state
land and materials from the Department of Natural Resources to
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the
construction or maintenance of the state highway system, state
airports, and state public buildings and facilities; relating to
the lease or sale of certain marine or harbor facilities;
relating to the lease or disposal by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities of rights-of-way, property
interests, or improvements that are no longer required; relating
to the grant of certain easements over submerged state land to
the federal government; relating to the transfer of certain
maintenance stations on the James Dalton Highway to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; relating to
the conveyance of land for right-of-way purposes from the Alaska
Railroad Corporation to the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities; and providing for an effective date."
2:27:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 371, labeled 28-LS1545\C, Bullock,
3/17/14 as the working document.
There being no objection, Version C was adopted as the working
document.
2:28:08 PM
JOHN BENNETT, Right-of-way Chief, Northern Region, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), referred to a
letter of March 13, 2014 in response to questions posed by the
committee on March 11, 2014. He stated the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 371, Version C, will help clarify
language in Section 16 regarding reciprocal easements. He also
understood questions arose on whether this bill would eliminate
or reduce public involvement or public notice so the department
generated a chart to show all the points of involvement and
notice [entitled "Typical DOT&PF Project Development Process"].
MR. BENNETT also understood Representative Johnson has been
considering a proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked to discuss some questions
raised.
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to the aforementioned response letter
from the DOT&PF that answers a number of the questions raised at
the March 11, 2014 hearing.
2:31:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the private sector
would interface with the bill. The [March 18, 2014] letter from
DOT&PF poses questions on how SB 211 or HB 371 impact funding
for DNR and DOT&PF. He read [from a letter by a DNR person not
identified], as follows:
Would DOT lose funding from the lost material sale
revenue as a result of this bill? Would DOT gain a
new funding source from selling material from the
material sites? Section 13 of the bill states DNR
would no longer charge DOT for material. Does "DOT"
include DOT contractors? Would DOT start charging
their contractors or others for material from state
material sites? If so, where would those funds go?
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged the large number of
questions.
MR. BENNETT responded he is correct, with respect to the issues
of payment for materials, since DOT&PF would no longer be
charged so DNR would no longer have that revenue stream. He
related his understanding that the bulk of the revenue for the
sales of material goes into the state's general fund. To the
extent that some of it might be used in management or processing
of material sales contracts, he pointed out that the DNR would
not have the burden of applying for or processing material sales
contracts so the lost revenue wouldn't be quite as big of a
problem [since neither department would have to administratively
manage these contracts]. With respect to DOT&PF generating
revenue by sale of materials, he responded that this bill does
not provide authority nor has the department had authority to
sell materials to third parties. Thus, there wouldn't be any
revenue stream coming in to DOT&PF by virtue of this bill.
Further, the DOT&PF wouldn't charge contractors for materials
because the department is expecting the bidding process to
result in better prices since the department will use state-
owned materials and not need to procure them.
2:33:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged he has had a vague
impression that private businesses sell materials. For example,
in Sitka there are private quarries that sell gravel. He
expressed concern that the state would be competing with the
private sector if the state provides the material for free but a
private quarry in the same proximity sells the same materials.
MR. BENNETT acknowledged the concern. Even though the
department has hundreds of BLM and DNR sites available, the
department likes to consider its contracts as advertised ,au
contain contract-furnished materials. For example, the
department might make a material site available - a BLM or DNR
site - but the contractor is not obligated to use them. The
contractor may decide to purchase materials elsewhere or develop
a material site. It all depends on the market forces as to what
is best for the contractor to reduce his/her overall costs.
Clearly a lot of commercial material sites and competition exist
in the urban and suburban areas so the market forces will work
very well for the state. In rural areas it is more difficult
since not many property owners have materials to sell.
Additionally, the department must perform geotechnical
investigations to determine whether the material meets its
specifications and sufficient quantities exist. He acknowledged
there might be a private property owner who is aware of
available gravel, but that gravel may not be suitable for the
project. Further, there isn't any assurance that the private
property owner will offer the same conditions, terms, or prices
to all the contractors. It could skew the project significantly
in the instance that only one commercial provider exists. He
summarized that the department recognizes commercial providers
exist but the market will determine whether those will be used
by the contractor.
2:37:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related a scenario in which DOT&PF has a
material site for a project. Since the materials are free to
the department, the DOT&PF can underbid or complete the project
for less by hiring state employees. He would like to ensure
that the state does not perform projects that have previously
been done by the private sector under a competitive process for
the materials.
MR. BENNETT deferred to the deputy commissioner to answer;
however, he offered his belief that prior to taking on a project
that would have gone out to bid, the department would need to do
a best interests findings to determine it was in the state's
been interest that the maintenance forces did not pay for
materials or even larger maintenance work that could constitute
a project. In the same sense contractors aren't going to be
charged either since the materials are state-owned and are
designated for state projects. Thus, the department doesn't
envision any issue will arise.
2:38:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether it is constitutional to
give away the state's resources.
MR. BENNETT answered that the state would not be giving away its
resources since the materials would be used for public projects.
Further, DOT&PF represents the public in this instance.
2:39:03 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that everyone is on
the same "playing field" since the DOT&PF doesn't charge the
contractors either.
MR. BENNETT agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained the state would be giving away
resources to a private contractor even though it is for the
public good.
MS. RICE explained that the department does not intend to change
contracting procedures. Under the bill, the proposed change
would merely reduce paperwork between DNR and DOT&PF. First,
the DOT&PF physically manages most of these pits. Currently,
the DOT&PF contacts DNR, creates a materials sales contract at
$.50 per yard - the standard price - and makes the contract
available in specifications to contractors. All contractors can
use this source for materials; however, the contracting
specifications also allow the contractor to go to any supply.
In fact, contractors will sometimes make their own pits. Any
materials that come from the state's pit will end up being
embankment so essentially the DOT&PF is moving from one resource
to another. The public will always continue to use it. The
$.50 per yard not being paid is pretty inconsequential compared
to the $2-4 per yard that the department would pay. Further,
most of that money is haul and placement. The DOT&PF needs
certain quality materials, makes them available, but most of the
time the materials are not used.
2:41:05 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON surmised most of those are not in urban areas.
MS. RICE said that most of the material used by the Municipality
of Anchorage (MOA) is hauled from the Matanuska-Susitna valley
by train since did not believe DOT&PF has a pit in the area.
2:41:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained that the state would be giving
away state assets since they would not be charging the
contractor. He related his understanding the department would
waiver the $.50 per yard fee and asked whether this is
constitutional.
MR. BENNETT answered that the DOT&PF has purchased land for its
project. The state requests that the contractor use the state-
owned material on the state's project.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON envisioned a paving project in which
private contractor can bid on it $.50 per yard, but under the
new scenario the fees are waived.
2:43:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON understood that since DNR was involved
and the DOT&PF has paid DNR for materials, which he equated as
an administrative fee. He further understood that under the
bill, since DNR is no longer the owner, the DOT&PF is moving
material from one state site to a road bed. The state doesn't
provide a public benefit by paying DNR an administrative fee.
This bill attempts to consolidate the process by limiting the
management the project and materials for the project to one
department [the DOT&PF].
2:44:49 PM
SEAN LYNCH, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation Section,
Department of Law (DOL), responded that Representative
Isaacson's characterization is fully accurate. When the state
furnishes culverts, materials, or anything else for a project,
all bidders accommodate for this in their bid, which results in
reduced project costs and general fund savings. In instances in
which contractors have to purchase materials from the state, the
state would also pay additional administrative costs for the two
agencies [DNR & DOT&PF]. He clarified that the contractors are
not taking materials for their own personal use for third party
uses, but are moving state materials from one place to the
state's project site.
CHAIR P. WILSON characterized this as "getting rid of the middle
guy" since it will be cheaper.
MR. BENNETT agreed. He described the current process as moving
money from DOT&PF to DNR and the contractor does not benefit in
any way.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thought it might be circular logic.
2:47:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE acknowledged it was shifting money from one
pocket to the other. He asked how this is applied in federally-
funded projects.
MR. BENNETT answered that most of DOT&PF's projects are
federally-funded projects. In those instances, the department
uses federal dollars to pay the $.50 fee per cubic yard fee to
DNR. He suggested that for the most part the funds end up in
the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE said the process would allow the DOT&PF to
obtain more from the federal funding for any given project.
MR. BENNETT answered that is correct.
2:47:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS related a scenario in a contractor invests
in a pit that provides the materials used on jobs; however, the
state is giving the contractor's competitors free gravel which
gives them an advantage.
CHAIR P. WILSON using that scenario, suggested that if the
contractor could get it for free that the competitors may also
wish to use the free material.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS agreed but pointed out that the contractor
would still be paying for the pit.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested the contractor could save his/her own
pit gravel for another purpose.
2:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE said the competitiveness of the private
gravel pit owner is somewhat reduced by eliminating the cost of
the gravel. He suggested that the cost of the gravel is
primarily the transportation cost to deliver the material.
MR. BENNETT agreed that is a relevant point. One contractor may
bid and plan to use the state's existing material site. The
successful bidder may have purchased a site to develop since it
could result in a 20-mile less haul distance. He maintained the
developed site could be more competitive and it will still
"shake out" in the market.
2:51:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS understood the discussion.
However, he suggested that this bill changes the market to a
certain extent. While transportation and haul costs will still
determine whose gravel pit is most competitive in a project, the
current market forces are changed under the bill. He was
interested in hearing from the private sector in the rural and
non-rural areas with respect to the bill. He offered his belief
that it merits further investigation as to the specifics of how
this will affect contractors.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that contractors would be complaining
if the bill [created disadvantages for them].
2:52:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON referred to the DOT&PF's response to the
committee [dated March 13, 2014]. He referred to page 2, which
read:
Could DOT&PF lease land from the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC), rather than the ARRC selling land
to DOT&PF?
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said the response was, in part, "The
short answer is that while leasing land from ARRC may benefit
the railroad's bottom line, it may not represent a good long
range policy for the management, operation and funding of DOT&PF
facilities."
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON offered that the letter gives two
examples, first, in which the ARRC was compensated in the
Illinois [Street project in Fairbanks]. In the second example,
the Healy River airport, the ARRC doesn't want to continue to
pay for a lease since it is a state benefit. He concluded that
the ARRC suffers negligible operational impacts when a portion
of ARRC's property is transferred as required for DOT&PF's
projects,. He understood the ARRC's land similar to the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Lands in that its purpose is to generate
revenue. Thus, the more land that is taken away from the
railroad the larger the impact it will have in terms of loss of
rent and profit. Currently, the ARRC has been suffering because
of fewer active leases and the ARRC has declining revenues due
to declining production at refineries and coal mines.
Therefore, any impact to the railroad can hurt, he said.
2:54:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON wondered if there might be a different
way to address this. He asked whether instead of taking land
the DOT&PF could exchange state land to compensate the railroad.
MR. BENNETT answered that DOT&PF doesn't have a land base that
it could trade since it is constrained by its obligations to the
federal funding agencies, such as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Further, the DOT&PF pays fair market
value to the railroad for any land DOT&PF takes. The concept
behind this just compensation is that the ARRC can take the
proceeds and replace the right-of-way land taken from them.
Therefore, it doesn't necessarily reduce the land base unless
the railroad doesn't replace the lands acquired for the project.
Additionally, a railroad is considered a utility so in terms of
highway rights-of-way or airports, the ARRC can through a
limited fee of a utility permit can gain access to them. He
characterized this as being a very lopsided relationship. The
DOT&PF pays full fair market value for any lands it needs to
acquire from the ARRC, but the railroad can use DOT&PF's land
for a very limited fee.
MR. BENNETT, in terms of the Illinois Street project, explained
that the public used Illinois Street for 100 years and will
likely use it for another hundred years. He anticipated that
for a 50-year lease the DOT&PF would pay for the property "over
and over again." More importantly, when the term comes due it
will likely be out of synch with a DOT&PF project that would
generate revenue to renew the lease. For example, it would be
possible to pay for a lease from a Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) funded project if one was available. Even
though the DOT&PF has been seeking one that without project
funding the DOT&PF doesn't have anything available to renew the
lease.
2:57:18 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that the ARRC reviewed this bill and
agreed with it.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON answered that this doesn't mean it will
necessarily be good for the railroad. He asked for further
clarification on the Healy project.
MR. BENNETT answered that it is not a good public policy for a
transportation department with long-term public needs to lease
land with a recurring renewal fee.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that the ARRC's agreement should
relieve members of these specific concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON responded that it doesn't. He asked
whether the ARRC would receive any compensation for the
$320,000.
MR. BENNETT answered that this bill doesn't address leasing. It
would only eliminate the step necessary to receive legislative
approval for the ARRC to convey fee simple title. The
department believes this will advance projects by one to two
years. He maintained that this bill does not address leasing.
It will not eliminate any lease revenues due to the railroad for
the airport. The DOT&PF must secure these funds prior to the
end of the lease in 2017 if the public intends to use the land.
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out a letter of support from the Alaska
General Contractors is in members' packets.
3:00:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, with respect to gravel, noted that DNR
will make available gravel sales to private companies for
private projects. He asked whether the ARRC will sell materials
to a private project. He interjected by related a scenario in
which the DOT&PF has materials and asked whether the department
will make gravel available to the public or if it is it just for
state use.
MR. BENNETT related his understanding the question is if DOT&PF
has acquired land from the ARRC or DNR, whether the DOT&PF would
sell gravel. To his knowledge, all the land acquired from the
ARRC has been dedicated to the actual operational need of the
highway or the airport. The DOT&PF doesn't have authority to
sell gravel, he said.
3:02:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed to non-railroad materials. He
understood a provision exists for DOT&PF to take a gravel pit
from DNR and use it for a state project. He asked whether
DOT&PF would sell non-railroad gravel to a private company,
which DNR can currently do.
MR. BENNETT answered yes.
3:02:47 PM
MR. LYNCH advised that the DOT&PF exemption in Section 13 of HB
371, relieves the DOT&PF from the material sales requirements.
He read, "Notwithstanding the provisions in AS 38.05.560 -
38.05.565 ...." This provision provides DNR authority to sell
materials from state-owned material sites. This bill relieves
the DOT&PF of the requirement from entering into a material
sales contract, but DNR retains its authority under AS 38.05.550
- 38.05.565 to sell material from these sites to third parties.
He reiterated that DOT&PF does not have any authority for third-
party sales and doesn't take the physical site itself.
3:04:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled testimony that if the state were
to provide a discount to a refiner on royalty oil, the state
would need to provide the same discount to everyone.
MR. LYNCH said he can't speak to the comparison since he doesn't
know the facts; however, this would allow for state-owned
resources to be removed from a state pit and put into a state
project. He concluded that the material is never disposed to a
third party. All bidders would have equal assess asset to
incorporate state owned material into the state project. It
would be the same way as if DOT&PF had an overstock of culverts
and lists it in the contract to be incorporated into the
project.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained that in terms of oil, whether
it was jet fuel for trains or something else that if the state
offered a discount it must give the same discount to all
parties.
3:05:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON recalled the commissioner said "may" but
not "must."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the state was subjected to
the same "may" for gravel as it is for oil so would the state be
putting itself in the position that it needed to give the
material away.
MR. LYNCH explained that the bids incorporate the same common
ground for "all bidders" so he did not envision this would set
up a disparity.
3:06:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE thought that the analogy would be to take
royalty oil and refine it into fuel used by state vehicles.
Further, the state could probably justify a lower cost of the
royalty oil if it resulted in a lower cost of fuel to the state
just as DOT&PF provides an equal opportunity for gravel to be
used on a state project. In the end, the result would be to
reduce the cost of materials. In the case of oil it could
reduce cost of fuel to the state and result in lower consumptive
costs to the state and hence the public.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained that a discount to one means
the state might need to give it to everyone.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE thought that rationale would only apply
since the state can only consume so much fuel.
3:07:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the language in Alaska's
Constitution that indicates the state's resources are for the
common good of all people.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON agreed that Article VIII, Alaska's
Constitution requires the maximum use and benefit to the people;
however, it also sets up a "similarly situated" aspect. Thus
the benefits would accrue to similarly situated circumstances
first and then to the rest. He suggested several other issues
could trigger a definitive answer.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked he still has questions.
3:10:02 PM
DICK MYLIUS said he is testifying as a private citizen although
he previously worked with DNR for 29 years and dealt with many
of these issues. He stated that his letter is in members'
packets [dated March 12, 2014]. He offered to summarize his
concerns that have not yet been addressed. His primary concern
stems from language in the bill that essentially says if the
DOT&PF asks DNR for a parcel of land, under proposed Sections 3,
5, 8, the state "shall" transfer these lands to airport,
highways, and facilities, respectively. Thus, DNR cannot
decline, condition the transfer, or protect existing or future
rights. His biggest concern relates to material sites or gravel
pits. Of his six general comments, the proposed CS, Version C
addresses his concern with Section 16. He explained that
proposed Section 13 would allow the DOT&PF to extract gravel
from any existing pit on state land. The DOT&PF would not be
allowed to establish any conditions on the gravel extraction.
He suggested that this provision needs to be distinguished from
the other provisions of the bill that allow DOT to receive title
to the surface estate.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for further clarification.
3:12:14 PM
MR. MYLIUS reiterated that Section 13 of HB 371 allows DOT&PF to
extract gravel from any existing gravel pit on state land,
including gravel pits may have been developed by another party
for a totally different purpose. For example, numerous gravel
pits exist on the North Slope. These pits have been developed
by the oil and gas industry or their contractors to specifically
support North Slope development. Of course, any development on
the North Slope would require gravel roads or pads although the
DNR has issued numerous gravel sales contracts to parties.
Under HB 371, DOT&PF could go take any amount of gravel from
those pits without any consideration or restrictions imposed by
DNR to protect those developing their own gravel pits. He
reiterated that DOT&PF could remove gravel from these pits that
essentially would make it impossible to fulfill contracts. The
provision in Section 13 doesn't say anything about protecting
valid existing rights although such protections are in other
provisions of the bill applying to the transfers. Section 13
would apply to any existing pits on state land. He strongly
recommended removing Section 13 from the bill.
3:13:48 PM
MR. MYLIUS said the bill still does not address the overriding
or competing land claims. He referred to an earlier example of
Happy Valley and Franklin Bluffs, in which the North Slope
Borough has municipal entitlement selections. The DOT&PF
responses indicate the state should keep those and the borough
essentially loses out. The bill doesn't address that there
still is a valid selection. If the intent of HB 371 is that
those parcels should be transferred to DOT&PF then the bill
should actually indicate that the NSB's selections should be
rejected. Otherwise the DNR will need to reject the selections
and likely need to litigate the matter. Additionally, if the
DOT&PF doesn't need all the land the bill leaves it totally up
to the DOT&PF to determine how much land and specifically which
land it gets to keep. This would essentially mean that the NSB
would be left with "the leftovers."
3:14:52 PM
MR. MYLIUS said the bill does not provide any method for public
concerns with access or conflicts with existing landowners. The
DOT&PF has indicated its existing process handles that process;
however, the DOT&PF's existing process pertains to highway
projects in terms of road location, but does not often get into
the specific location of gravel pits for state highway projects.
Those decisions are typically subsequent decisions and the
decisions about buffers and similar issues are made through DNR
at the time it executes a gravel sale to DOT&PF. Therefore,
there isn't any provision that allows for those types of issues
to be dealt with, he said.
3:15:31 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, asked him to put his concerns in writing.
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 371.
[HB 371 was held over.]
3:17:07 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:17
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB371 AGC Support Letter.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371 Testimony of Dick Mylius .pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB 371 comments Smith.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| HB0343A.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB 343-Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB 343-Sectional Anaylsis.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB343 DOTPF Presentation 3-13.msg |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB343-DOA-FAC-03-07-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB343-DOR-AHFC-03-07-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB343-DOT-SPF-3-13-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| Sustainable Energy Act Annual Report to Legislature 2013 (2013 12 26).pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB 343 ASHRAE 90_1 Article.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB 343 Standardized Designs DOTPF 3-13-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB-343 AHFC 3 13 14 FINAL.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| HB 343 CCHRC Presentation.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2014 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 343 |
| 4407 MOU (wo exhibits).pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 SB 211 |
| Egan SB211 Response.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 SB 211 |
| Happy Valley Docs.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 SB 211 |
| HB 371 - letter Milles 3-12-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| Project Flow Chart.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 SB 211 |
| HB 371 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| Wilson HB371 Response.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |
| CSHB 371 Ver C Work Draft.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 371 |