Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/21/2000 09:03 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
April 21, 2000
9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Miller, Chairman
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Vice-Chairman
Senator Drue Pearce
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 445(RLS) am
"An Act relating to a rural school construction and planned
maintenance pilot program; and providing for an effective date."
-MOVED CSHB 445(RLS)am OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 445 - No previous action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Dale Anderson
Staff to Representative Mulder
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 445 for the House Finance
Committee
Ms. Sharon Macklin
Alaska Professional Design Council
315 5th St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CSHB 445(RLS)am
Mr. Eddy Jeans, Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development
801 W 10th St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about CSHB 45(RLS)am
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-20, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN MILLER called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:03 a.m. Present were
Senators Wilken, Elton and Chairman Miller. The item before the
committee was HB 445.
HB 445-RURAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
MR. DALE ANDERSON, staff to the House Finance Committee, sponsor of
HB 445, gave the following explanation of the measure. The intent
of HB 445 is to provide Alaska with the best value for the dollar.
The bill has recently received broad support from the construction
industry, and labor and design engineering entities. A copy of the
list of supporters was placed in committee members' packets. HB
445 calls for a collaboration between communities and local school
districts, using the priority list from the Department of Education
and Early Development (DOEED) and state financing methodologies
with private sector development techniques to achieve savings.
This collaboration should enable the State to offer communities
school facilities more quickly and less expensively. This bill was
never intended to provide for sole source contracts. When
Representatives debated that issue, he spoke to the drafter in the
Division of Legal Services and was told that statutes must be
written in the singular but, when interpreted, they apply to the
plural. The House Finance Committee then prepared a committee
substitute in the plural to clarify the fact that it did not want a
sole source arrangement. In addition, when the qualifications were
first written, the Committee thought they were quite broad.
Industry representatives, however, interpreted them to be narrow so
the bill was returned to the House Rules Committee from the House
floor so that a meeting with industry representatives could be
held. During that meeting, the industry representatives proposed
other changes to the bill which were incorporated. The House Rules
Committee members considered those changes to be a matter of
semantics. The intent of the bill is to build more schools for
less money.
SENATOR WILKEN asked whether the terms, "a planned maintenance
pilot program" on page 2, lines 6-7, and "facility maintenance
plan" on page 3, line 1, are defined anywhere.
MR. ANDERSON explained those terms were included in the bill to
ensure that when new buildings are constructed, maintenance is part
of the plan. HB 334 asks DOEED, when it produces a request for
proposals (RFP), to include maintenance as a component. When an
entity responds to the RFP, the proposal should contain an extended
date beyond the date of completion, perhaps three to five years.
Ideally, the proposal would include maintenance training for local
people so that they know what to do and when.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if, for example, ACME Architects and
Construction built the school, ACME Maintenance would then maintain
the building for a period of time which would take care of any
warranty work through the design-build process and get the district
trained to keep it up.
MR. ANDERSON replied it would. He did not know whether Acme
Maintenance would be responsible for the monetary part of the
maintenance but it would be involved in the training. An entity
responding to the RFP would include those details in a proposal.
SENATOR WILKEN referred to the RFP components listed on page 2 and
asked if the sponsor would be agreeable to adding another component
that speaks to prototype opportunities.
MR. ANDERSON said prototype opportunities would fall under item
(2), design methodologies, on page 2, line 23.
SENATOR WILKEN suggested rewording item (2) to say, "design
methodologies including prototype opportunities."
MR. ANDERSON said he did not think the sponsor would have a problem
with that but he did not know that he wanted to tie the RFP to a
demand that it be a prototype. If a respondent showed that a
prototype was better, that would be the way to go.
SENATOR WILKEN commented if the State continues to do things the
way it has been without considering ways to do better, we will
continue to get the same things. If the RFP asks respondents to
consider prototypes and the prototype is an improvement it should
be proposed.
SENATOR WILKEN moved to adopt a conceptual amendment to add the
words "including prototype opportunities" on page 2, line 23.
SENATOR ELTON objected and stated if the bill is amended, it will
have to go back to the other house for concurrence. Second, the
amendment will narrow the RFP process in a manner that constricts
the ability of the respondent to determine which may be best.
CHAIRMAN MILLER suggested adding prototype opportunities as a new
item (7) which would require respondents to consider them. He
noted that prototype schools will not work in all areas so adding
item (7) will ask respondents to look at the possibility but it
will not require anything more than that.
SENATOR WILKEN withdrew his motion and said he would talk to DOEED
officials to see if there is another way to approach his concern.
MR. ANDERSON agreed that to change the bill at this late date would
be dangerous.
SENATOR WILKEN noted that no REAAs have supported this bill.
MR. ANDERSON replied he has received responses from two REAAs; one
was favorable, the other was unsure of the bill.
MS. SHARON MACKLIN, representing the Alaska Professional Design
Council (APDC), stated support for CSHB 445(RLS)am. She worked
with Representative Mulder's staff and participated at the last
meeting. APDC appreciates the change made on page 2, lines 14-16,
which allows one school or up to two-thirds of the school projects
to be constructed under the pilot program. APDC also felt it was
important to require an evaluation process in the bill so that the
State could find out if this approach saves money. Regarding the
issue of prototype schools and components, APDC feels that
components, such as gymnasiums, may work in certain areas.
MR. ANDERSON pointed out that the design phase is complete for all
of the schools on DOE&ED's list so the bill speaks to using
existing plans rather than starting over.
CHAIRMAN MILLER noted the bill could address future projects.
MR. EDDY JEANS, School Finance and Facilities Section manager,
DOE&ED, informed committee members that DOE&ED worked with
Representative Mulder's staff during the preliminary stages of the
bill. He pointed out that CSHB 445(RLS)am requires DOE&ED to issue
one RFP for school construction in REAAs that are funded in fiscal
year 2001. This is a pilot project. The bidders can bid on one or
more projects but they cannot be awarded more than two-thirds of
the total projects funded. It is DOE&ED's understanding that if
the bid proposals do not show a savings over the projected costs or
funding levels of the projects, DOE&ED may use the current process
used to construct new schools. The existing projects to be funded
for FY 2001 have all been through the design stage so the
discussion about prototype schools is moot at this point. He
offered to answer questions.
SENATOR WILKEN asked Mr. Jeans to discuss his concept of the
maintenance component of the pilot program.
MR. JEANS said DOE&ED's understanding is that it will write into
the RFP a three-year maintenance training plan so that the
successful bidder will develop a maintenance plan and provide
training to the district staff and do periodic inspections for a
three-year period.
SENATOR WILKEN asked if that would be in conjunction with or
replace a former requirement for a preventive maintenance program.
MR. JEANS said he believes the three-year maintenance plan will
enhance it. Right now contractors turn over the keys when the
building is complete.
SENATOR WILKEN referred to the two-thirds number in the bill and
asked how that will apply if five projects are considered.
MR. JEANS thought three projects could be completed.
SENATOR WILKEN asked Mr. Jeans his opinion of adding a new item (7)
which would refer to prototype opportunities.
MR. JEANS answered that all of the schools have been through the
design phase so he does not see the benefit of adding prototypes at
this point.
SENATOR WILKEN commented if this pilot project is a success and it
is done again, he will consider it then.
CHAIRMAN MILLER asked if DOE&ED supports the concepts in CSHB
445(RLS)am.
MR. JEANS replied DOE&ED supports the concepts. When he started
working with Representative Mulder's staff on this concept, they
talked about a much larger program. The concept interested him
because he was looking at the economies of scale. He is not sure
however, that efficiencies will be gained with fewer projects and
different bidders.
CHAIRMAN MILLER noted that efficiencies will be gained for the
local school districts if they know how to maintain the new school.
MR. JEANS said that is correct but one efficiency he was referring
to was a developer being able to coordinate the purchase of
mechanical equipment.
There being no further testimony, SENATOR WILKEN moved CSHB
445(RLS)am from committee with individual recommendations and its
attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
CHAIRMAN MILLER then adjourned the meeting at 9:38 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|