Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/28/1998 09:00 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
January 28, 1998
9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Wilken, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman, Vice-Chairman
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 19
Relating to the use of prototype designs in public school
construction projects.
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 189(JUD) am
"An Act relating to sale, gift, exchange, or distribution of
tobacco and tobacco products."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SCR 19 - No previous action to report.
HB 189 - See HESS minutes dated 1/16/98.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Tim Kelly
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SCR 19
Michael Morgan
Facilities Section Manager
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Ste. 200
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SCR 19
Doug Green
American Institute of Architects
901 W. 29th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SCR 19
Mr. Len Mackler
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
520 Fifth Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SCR 19
Mr. Lou Matheson
Northwest Arctic Borough School District
P.O. Box 51
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports concept of SCR 19
Mr. David Bell
Northwest Arctic Borough School District
P.O. Box 51
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports concept of SCR 19
Anne Marie Holen
Alaska Native Health Board
4201 Tudor Centre, #105
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 189
Anne Carpeneti
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 189
Mark Hickey
211 4th St., Suite 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 189
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-5, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN WILKEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:03 a.m. and recognized the
presence of Senators Ellis, Ward, and Green. He announced SCR 19
would be the first order of business, and HB 189 the second.
SCR 19 - PROTOTYPE SCHOOL DESIGN
SENATOR TIM KELLY, co-chair of the Deferred Maintenance Task Force
(DMTF), presented SCR 19. The DMTF received testimony on the cost
savings and operational advantages of prototypical schools.
Several communities use them today; the task force found that
savings in design costs and ease of maintaining several identical
physical plants offered the opportunity to fund more schools as the
savings are achieved. One rural school district has expressed
great interest in using a prototype for schools in its district and
is currently in discussion with the Fairbanks School District to
learn from the Fairbanks experience. Two schools in Fairbanks are
of the same design and were built at less cost. The resolution
requests the Department of Education (DOE) to develop prototypical
schools and incentives for districts to use them. The DOE is
requested to report to the Legislature by March 1 any statutory
changes that may be needed to accomplish this goal.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN commented that he was also a member of the DMTF and
he had prior experience on the prototype effort through his
association with the Fairbanks' School District. When traveling
throughout the Northwest District this summer, he was struck by the
idea that a prototypical school in those areas would be a welcome
addition to the villages at a significantly lower cost. If the
state can build schools across the state for less than double digit
numbers, it will get more for its dollars.
Number 081
DOUG GREEN, a member and chair of the Governmental Affairs
Committee of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), and the
Alaska Professional Design Council (APFC), gave the following
testimony. Prototypes used in Anchorage and Fairbanks have been
successful because both locations have larger populations and
similar site conditions, and because the same firms were involved
in reusing the designs. Although those projects were successful,
he stated the following concerns about using that concept
statewide. In 1991 the Georgia DOE surveyed 49 states and found
many of the states that had tried prototypical designs would not
use them again, and no states used them on a statewide basis. The
State of Alaska has a wide variety of site, climatic, and soil
conditions; very little is saved when different conditions have to
be considered in the design of each school. There is a high cost
associated with developing various designs for different climatic
and soil conditions across the state. If all site conditions are
similar, a cost savings of 15 to 20 percent can result from using
prototypical designs. These designs, once developed, become
outdated with code changes and technological advances. If the
committee's goal is to save money, the AIA has found that in small
communities where local residents are involved in the design of a
school, they take much greater responsibility for the building and
treat it better. That pride of ownership translates to lower
maintenance costs and better care for the facility. The AIA's
third concern is with liability. If prototypical designs are used
statewide, one architect may have to modify the original design
which could create liability problems. In addition, AIA believes
there may be problems with standardizing educational
specifications. He suggested headway could be made by introducing
a database of features that have worked well for school districts
across the state.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN asked what the other variables would be difficult
to incorporate into a basic school design across the state, other
than foundations and sloping sites. MR. GREEN said many of the
variables are climate related. In Southeast, buildings must be
designed for heavy rainfall and moisture in the air, on the north
and west coasts the concern is fine powder-driven snow
infiltration, vapor barrier concerns, insulation, and wind
patterns. Using a prototype design might result in an over-designed model in S
along the north coast.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN clarified SCR 19 only applies to primary schools.
He suggested creating three prototypical designs for different
climates: north of the Alaska Range, Southcentral, and Southeast.
MR. GREEN stated there are also different seismic zones throughout
the State that require specific design standards for each zone.
Number 225
CHAIRMAN WILKEN noted Len Mackler would be testifying next via
teleconference. Mr. Mackler testified before the DMTF meeting in
Fairbanks and gave a visual presentation, and gave task force
members a tour of two prototypical schools.
LEN MACKLER stated the Fairbanks School District uses a 600-student
elementary school prototype. The first school was built in 1993;
six more have been built since. The Fairbanks School District owns
the design, and has improved it each time to correct any facility
or educational program problems that arose out of previous
versions. The prototype requires a fairly flat site. The school
district also has a sloped site design that has only been used
once. The last of the seven prototypes built cost $9.9 million in
construction costs, for a 63,000 square foot building ($157 per sq.
ft.). Fairbanks has realized several advantages of prototype
design use. The first advantage is time saved which can eliminate
one year of inflation costs, get the students into better
facilities sooner, and reduce overcrowding faster. Voters also see
a quicker response to bond issues. The second advantage is the
cost savings. Fairbanks is spending about five percent of
construction costs on architect and engineering designs versus the
more typical 10 to 11 percent for each new design. That six
percent difference amounts to about $750,000 plus the one year
inflation savings. The third advantage is bid competitiveness.
Contractors who bid on these projects know that the low bidder on
each previous prototype made money and that the designs are
complete. Every project has come in under the engineer's estimate.
The fourth advantage is the teachers' and principals' significant
input into the design. After the first year of occupancy, all
staff are surveyed and asked for suggestions. Those comments are
analyzed and incorporated into the next design. The designs are
also upgraded for technology and current codes, and one district
wide special education program is included to meet that program's
needs. Start-up problems are drastically reduced. The last
advantage is the standardization of systems and use of high quality
components, which reaps big rewards in overall maintenance
programs.
MR. MACKLER explained the Fairbanks' School District has also used
elements of the prototypical designs in renovations and additions
to older schools. In summary, the Fairbanks' community likes the
prototypical concept and has saved considerable money in initial
construction costs and in the long term maintenance costs of its
facilities.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN asked who has opposed the effort for prototypical
schools in Fairbanks. MR. MACKLER answered the only complaint came
from some people in the design community, particularly architects
who were beaten out during the RFP phase by the original architect
who knew the most about the building. Based on the savings and
input from the staff using the building, that complaint was found
to have no merit.
Number 484
SENATOR LEMAN questioned who assumes the liability for the school
district when the prototype designs are changed. MR. MACKLER
answered the borough has public works staff who contract for the
construction. The borough owns the prototype design, and each
upgraded design, so it does assume some liability.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if changes are being made to the design, the
borough would have full responsibility for the design. He asked
who is stamping the contract documents. MR. MACKLER said the
architects are stamping the contract documents. SENATOR LEMAN
asked if the architects are under contract to the school district.
MR. MACKLER replied each time a prototype is about to be built, the
school district issues an RFP to hire an architect; that architect
is responsible for the design and stamps the drawings. SENATOR
LEMAN asked if the architect takes the district's prototype design,
makes the appropriate changes for that site, incorporates
technology upgrades, and seals the contract documents. MR. MACKLER
said that is the procedure used.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN noted that Mr. Mackler is a member of the Bond
Reimbursement and Grant Review Committee which will visit this
issue on February 19 in Juneau.
LOU MATHESON, the Superintendent of the Northwest Arctic Borough
School District (NWABSD), testified via teleconference from
Kotzebue. NWABSD supports the concept of prototypical schools
because it believes the approach has merit, even in rural Alaska
and on different building sites. Prototypical school designs will
bring about an initial reduction in construction costs, primarily
due to decreased design costs, and the standardization of equipment
and materials should reduce operating costs. NWABSD also
anticipates there will be a reduction in expansion costs. One
school in Kotzebue, completed in 1989, is already well beyond its
capacity. If the prototypical design could be expanded easily,
rather than requiring a complete redesign, cost savings will
result. NWABSD offered to assist the committee to expedite
severely-needed new construction in rural Alaska.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN noted the Buckland School is seventh on the capital
replacement list.
DAVID BELL, testifying from Kotzebue, stated Mr. Matheson covered
the remarks he planned to make.
Number 388
MIKE MORGAN, Facilities Manager for the Department of Education
(DOE), made the following comments. To accomplish the goals of SCR
19, DOE will need more definition. The resolution does not clarify
whether it applies to elementary schools only, and what core school
functions are. He noted that the issue of school size has not been
addressed either. DOE's position paper postulates four different
size ranges which allows for expandability. He cautioned that DOE
used a stock plan in the 1970's, and if prototypical designs are
used again, he would want assurance that the same problems do not
recur.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN asked if the Molly Hootch schools are "cookie-cutter" schools.
the same plan.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN stated that he and Senator Leman had a chance to
see some of those schools and felt they were disappointing at best.
MR. MORGAN said the design with a narrow stairway going to a forced
air furnace room was replicated in a number of places around the
state, and that design suffers in a number of aspects.
MR. MORGAN informed the committee he attended a conference held by
the Council of Educational Facility Planners last summer. British
Columbia's experience with facility planning was discussed.
British Columbia has a wide climatic and school size range, similar
to Alaska. To control costs, it has placed a limit on the per
square foot cost with an adjustment for area, and requires value
engineering. Value engineering requires the use of a procedure to
determine that specific components make good economic sense over
the full life of the school, such as the use of cedar siding.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN commented this legislation may be the worst idea
to come down the pike but this issue needs to be explored by the
Bond Reimbursement Committee, DMTF members, and DOE staff. He
repeated if 15 to 20 percent is saved on each school, the
Legislature can get down the list a lot faster.
SENATOR ELLIS asked Mr. Morgan if he was suggesting Alaska adopt
some of the procedures used in British Columbia as an alternative
to what SCR 19 mandates, the development of regulations and
incentives for using prototypes. MR. MORGAN said the issue of
prototypes brings to the table the various things that need to be
done to control costs. He was offering that information as other
possible avenues that could be used instead of, or in conjunction
with, the use of prototypical designs.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN stated that one of the charges of the Bond
Reimbursement Committee, formed in 1994 by the Legislature, is to
analyze existing prototypical designs for school construction
projects. This idea began long before the DMTF came along.
SENATOR ELLIS asked whether any organizations have compiled
statistics or anecdotes from previous experiences in the '70s with
the prototypical approach. MR. MORGAN replied that nothing has
been documented, but creating a "lessons learned" report is on
DOE's list of things to do.
Number 469
CHAIRMAN WILKEN stated that he learned, from his limited visits to
the Bush this summer, that the Molly Hootch schools offered the
opportunity to task the maintenance of any school district. In
his opinion, those schools were not built for Alaska.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if Mr. Green had sent written testimony to the
committee. CHAIRMAN WILKEN stated the Society of Architects would
be submitting a position paper, and that SCR 19 would remain in
committee so that members could work on the K-6 issue and other
changes.
Number 484
SENATOR LEMAN said he served on the DMTF and has been in many
schools around the state in his professional capacity. He stated
he shares many of Mr. Green's reservations, and is concerned that
the Legislature thinks it can apply a simplistic solution statewide
to solve this problem. He agrees with the goal of getting good
designs at a lower cost and that this approach has been successful
in Anchorage and Fairbanks, and he favors encouraging this approach
where it can be successful. He cautioned that it would be unwise
to think this approach is a cure-all for new school construction
statewide. He suggested keeping a repository in DOE of successful
plans, but noted he is reluctant to ask the DOE to develop
prototypical designs. Senator Leman concluded that he likes the
goal of the resolution, but believes this approach could be
dangerous in some circumstances. He offered to work with all
interested to craft the measure to encourage the appropriate
activity to accomplish the goal.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN acknowledged Senator Leman's remarks and explained
SCR 19 has been offered as a concept for the Administration and
Legislature to work toward. He announced to those on
teleconference that SCR 19, if it passes the Legislature, will be
brought before the Bond Reimbursement Committee on February 19.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if SCR 19 will be scheduled before the
committee again. CHAIRMAN WILKEN said it would.
HB 189 - RESTRICT TOBACCO SALES
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY, sponsor of HB 189, deferred to Marco
Pignalberi to explain the changes made in the proposed committee
substitute.
MARCO PIGNALBERI, staff to Representative Cowdery, noted the draft
committee substitute is SCS CSSSHB 189(HES), version 0-LS0711\L.
SENATOR WARD moved to adopt that version as the working document of
the committee. There being no objection, the motion carried.
MR. PIGNALBERI, explained the committee substitute contains five
key changes recommended by the committee and the attorney general's
office. Those changes are as follows.
1. The culpability standard was changed back from "knowingly"
to "negligently" throughout the bill;
2. On page 2, lines 12-13, new language was added requiring
a sign to be posted in employee break rooms and applies to
businesses that have cigarette vending machines in employee
break rooms and employ minors;
3. On page 2, lines 29-31, new language was added to clarify
that wholesale businesses that also sell retail must adhere to
the self service prohibition for retail sales;
4. On page 3, lines 1 and 2, language has been added that
applies to shops that sell only tobacco products. Those shops
do not allow entry to individuals under the age of 19 so there
is no reason to prohibit self-service tobacco displays in
those locations.
TAPE 98-5, SIDE B
5. Section 6 ties the penalty provision to the occupational
licensing statute. It was not clear to the Attorney General's
Office that the penalty could be invoked against people who
had licenses under that statute.
SENATOR LEMAN noted one other significant change: Section 3 (page
2) changes the class B misdemeanor penalty to a violation.
MR. PIGNALBERI affirmed that was correct. He also noted that the
provision that mandated that maximum effect be given to both HB 159
and HB 189 if enacted was deleted because the vending machine
statutes were included in HB 189.
Number 570
SENATOR LEMAN advised that current law, and HB 189, state that the
violation shall be punishable by a fine of not less than $300. He
asked what the maximum amount of the fine for a violation is. MR.
PIGNALBERI said a previous speaker testified that the fine could be
as high as $1,000, but he suggested asking a representative from
the Attorney General's Office.
SENATOR LEMAN thought the $300 fine was adequate to change
behavior, especially if judgment is swift and sure.
SENATOR GREEN asked Mr. Pignalberi to review the difference between
the "knowing" and "negligent" standard. MR. PIGNALBERI explained
the culpability standard for "negligently" applies to a violation
and is a lower standard. If the penalty or fine is increased, the
law requires the standard of culpability to be increased, placing
a more difficult burden on the State to prove. Law enforcement
officials requested the lower penalty because it requires a lower
burden of proof and is easier to achieve in the course of a
prosecution.
ANNE MARIE HOLEN, representing the Sealaska Native Health Board and
Citizens to Protect Kids from Tobacco, thanked the committee for
considering suggestions made at the last meeting and asked the
following questions of the Department of Law.
CHAIRMAN WILKEN announced Anne Carpeneti of the Department of Law
had joined members at the table.
MS. HOLEN asked how this legislation will be enforced in the real
world and how police will determine if a vendor is violating the
provision that all sales must be clerk-assisted. She questioned
whether a police officer can simply look in a store and cite a
merchant if the officer sees self-service tobacco displays, or
whether the officer would have to witness a purchase attempt.
MS. CARPENETI replied she would prefer to have Department of Public
Safety personnel answer that but it is her understanding that the
purpose of the bill is to avoid having to have sting operations to
enforce the tobacco statutes. That is why it requires controlled
sales behind the counter. She thought the section that does that
could be drafted a little more clearly.
Number 525
MS. HOLEN asked how it will be determined that a retailer who sells
only tobacco products should be exempted, and whether that retailer
could be cited if a teenager entered the store even though a sign
is posted requiring those who enter to be 19.
MS. CARPENETI said it has been suggested that Section 4(b) be
redrafted to clarify that the exception applies only to retailers
who sell mainly tobacco products and not the 7-11 stores that sell
cigarettes. She thought Ms. Holen's concerns could be addressed in
that subsection if it is redrafted.
MS. CARPENETI thanked the Chairman for including the Department of
Law's suggested amendments in the committee substitute. The
department also believes Section 2 (AS 11.76) should be rewritten
in terms of positives rather than negatives, for purposes of
clarification, and that a penalty provision be added. She added if
the provision that applies to retailers who sell only tobacco
products is not restricted to those retailers only, it could create
a loophole that could be applied to all retailers.
Number 496
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY agreed with the changes suggested by Ms.
Carpeneti. CHAIRMAN WILKEN announced the bill will be redrafted
and rescheduled next week.
MARK HICKEY, representing the Coalition of Citizens to Protect Kids
from Tobacco, agreed with the previous speaker's comments. He
expressed concern that subsection(b) on page 3, lines 1 and 2,
might negatively affect enforcement actions as drafted. He
suggested adding a lead in phrase that says, "In the case of a
retailer that principally sells only tobacco products,...."
SENATOR LEMAN thought the word "only" could be eliminated because
some tobacco shops do sell a few other products.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated he will present a revised committee
substitute to the committee next week.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CHAIRMAN WILKEN adjourned the meeting at 10:02 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|