Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/07/2018 02:00 PM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB233 | |
| HB212 | |
| SB142 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 233 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 212(RLS)
"An Act relating to funding for school construction
and major maintenance; relating to the regional
educational attendance area and small municipal school
district fund; and providing for an effective date."
3:12:46 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon reported the bill had been heard on
April 23, 2018 when the public hearing had been heard and
closed and the fiscal notes had been reviewed.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT the committee substitute
for CSHB 212(RLS), Work Draft 30-LS0741\M (Laffen, 5/4/18).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
JULI LUCKY, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, reviewed the two
changes in the CS. She referenced previous bill hearing
where there had been discussion on the effective date. The
effective date had been changed to immediate in the CS.
Additionally, the previous version of the bill had
specified 20 percent for major maintenance. The new CS
removed the 20 percent specification, but noted on page 1,
lines 10 through 11 that the fund's primary function was to
fund school construction projects.
3:14:09 PM
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, discussed
the bill. She explained the bill would allow more major
maintenance in Regional Educational Attendance Area (REAA)
and small municipal school districts. The bill did not add
more money to increase the size of the pie. She detailed
the bill would reallocate how the pie was cut. Currently
the REAA and Small Municipal School District Fund could
only be used for new school construction. The bill would
allow the fund to be used for major maintenance in addition
to new school construction in REAA and small municipal
school district areas, with construction taking precedence.
The bill would help reduce the deterioration of schools,
which would save millions of dollars in the long run. For
example, it was preferable to be proactive and replace a
roof than to be reactive and replace an entire school. The
sponsor had reviewed the CS and was amenable to the
changes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Work Draft 30-LS0741\M was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair MacKinnon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS0741\M
(Laffen, 5/4/18) (copy on file):
Page 1, following line 4:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 14.11.013(a) is amended to read:
(a) With regard to projects for which grants are
requested under AS 14.11.011, the department shall
(1) annually review the six-year plans submitted by
each district under AS 14.11.011(b) and recommend to
the board a revised and updated six-year capital
improvement project grant schedule that serves the
best interests of the state and each district; in
recommending projects for this schedule, the
department shall verify that each proposed project
meets the criteria established under AS 14.11.014(b)
and qualifies as a project required to
(A) avert imminent danger or correct life-threatening
situations;
(B) house students who would otherwise be unhoused;
for purposes of this subparagraph, students are
considered unhoused if the students attend school in
temporary facilities;
(C) protect the structure of existing school
facilities;
(D) correct building code deficiencies that require
major repair or rehabilitation in order for the
facility to continue to be used for the educational
program;
(E) achieve an operating cost savings;
(F) modify or rehabilitate facilities for the purpose
of improving the instructional program;
(G) meet an educational 1 need not specified in (A) -
(F) of this paragraph, identified by the department;
(2) prepare an estimate of the amount of money needed
to finance each project;
(3) provide to the governor, by November 1, and to the
legislature within the first 10 days of each regular
legislative session, a revised and updated six-year
capital improvement project grant schedule, together
with a proposed schedule of appropriations;
(4) encourage each school district to use previously
approved school construction design plans and building
systems if the use will result in cost savings for the
project;
(5) consider the regionally based model school
standards developed under AS 14.11.017(d).
* Sec. 2. AS 14.11.013(b) is amended to read:
(b) In preparing the construction grant schedule, the
department shall establish priorities among projects
for which grants are requested and shall award school
construction grants in the order of priority
established. In establishing priorities the department
shall evaluate at least the following factors, without
establishing an absolute priority for any one factor:
(1) emergency requirements;
(2) priorities assigned by the district to the
projects requested;
(3) new local elementary and secondary programs;
(4) existing regional, community, and school
facilities, and their condition; this paragraph does
not include administrative facilities;
(5) the amount of district operating funds expended
for maintenance; [AND]
(6) other options that would reduce or eliminate the
need for the request;
(7) the district's use of previously approved school
construction design plans and building systems if the
use will result in cost savings for the project; and
(8) consideration of regionally 1 based model school
standards under AS 14.11.017(d).
* Sec. 3. AS 14.11.013(c) is amended to read:
(c) The department may
(1) modify a project request when necessary to achieve
cost-effective school construction;
(2) require that a school construction project be
phased for purposes of planning, design, and
construction; [AND] (3) reject project requests and
omit them from the six-year schedule due to
(A) incomplete information or documentation provided
by the
district;
(B) a determination by the department that existing
facilities can adequately serve the program
requirements, or that alternative projects are in the
best interests of the state;
(C) a determination that the project is not in the
best interest of the state; and
(4) require that a school construction project include
all or part of the regionally based model school
standards developed under AS 14.11.017(d) or reuse
previously approved design plans and building systems
that would result in capital or operating cost savings
for the project.
* Sec. 4. AS 14.11.017 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) The department shall develop and periodically
update regionally based model school construction
standards that describe acceptable building systems
and anticipated costs and establish school design
ratios to achieve efficient and cost-effective school
construction. In developing the standards, the
department shall consider the standards and criteria
developed under AS 14.11.014(b)."
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 5"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Vice-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained the amendment. She detailed
the legislature had been going through a process for over a
decade looking at schools and how schools were built across
Alaska. The research had been to determine whether there
was a different way the state could do business that would
allow designs to be reused and building components to be
standardized. A study had been done by the department
[Department of Education and Early Development] that
specified the changes would not bring a cost savings unless
multiple schools were being built. There were three schools
on the REAA list in the same district that were all being
built and had developed designs independent of each other
that were costing the state $30 million, $35 million, and
$40 million-plus schools. The amendment established a
guideline - if districts allowed and under the direction of
the department - to organize and try to save the state some
money in design development and building construction. She
relayed a process had been conducted and the review
committee had rejected the process with cost savings. She
asked the department to address the committee.
3:17:26 PM
TIM MEARIG, FACILITIES MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT (DEED), relayed the amendment introduced
a couple of provisions not currently in statute. The
amendment allowed the opportunity to develop the criteria
for regionally based model school construction standards in
a new paragraph under AS 14.11.017(d), Section 4. He
believed the opportunity to develop the standards and
describe acceptable building systems to be used in Alaska
schools was positive and would allow the state, districts,
and department to work collaboratively. He detailed the
provision impacted other areas of the bill as the
department analyzed school construction grant applications.
The other provision was based around considering previous
school designs and when they could appropriately be used in
establishing a design for another school. There were some
additional provisions in the amendment that would allow the
department to encourage, measure, and enforce the
consideration of when previous school designs could be used
when designing other schools.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether her staff had been working
with Mr. Mearig on the amendment. Mr. Merrick replied in
the affirmative.
3:19:27 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Ms. Pierson had any comments on
Amendment 1. Ms. Pierson reported that Representative
Foster was amenable to the amendment.
Senator Micciche spoke about the materials components,
construction experience, and transportation of goods
related to school construction. He asked if the items were
something DEED would look at in the future to reduce costs.
Mr. Mearig answered that the provision to develop
regionally based model school standards would help to
identify best practices in the areas mentioned by Senator
Micciche as well, including logistics and systems.
Specifically, the department was looking at standards of
acceptable building systems and associated costs as well as
design ratios that would achieve efficiency. The department
would measure things like the exterior envelope square
footage for the building volume to identify an appropriate
building efficiency. For example, the process would ensure
a building did not end up with 100 corners. Many of the
costs mentioned by Senator Micciche were not necessarily
things that were easy for DEED to develop in standards. He
explained that mobilization and shipping costs would be
difficult for DEED to control. However, the department
understood that the heavier the material, the more
expensive the school would be to construct.
Vice-Chair Bishop appreciated the amendment. He asked if
DEED worked with the Cold Climate Housing Research Center
(CCHRC) at the University of Alaska and whether that work
would be incorporated into actions directed under the
amendment.
Mr. Mearig responded that DEED had not had significant
interaction with CCHRC with regard to commercial building
and schools. He followed CCHRC's work and believed there
was good opportunity for collaboration between the two
entities in regard to actions under the amendment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon suggested that the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) may be another natural partner to help with
weatherization of the commercial buildings. She noted that
sometimes there was a substantial amount of glass used in
the buildings. Part of the problem she had with the current
design process was that the architect chose what the
building would look like and sometimes beautiful entrances
were created that were not functionally compatible with the
climate. She hoped the amendment would enable DEED to work
with districts to obtain a beautiful and functional school
design.
Co-Chair MacKinnon communicated the committee did not yet
have the fiscal note for the bill, which she believed would
be around $300,000. She believed the bill would report out
the following day.
CSHB 212(RLS) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:24:34 PM
AT EASE
3:25:37 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 212 SCS FIN work draft version M.pdf |
SFIN 5/7/2018 2:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |
| HB 212 SCS FIN v. M Explanation.pdf |
SFIN 5/7/2018 2:00:00 PM |
HB 212 |