Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/21/1998 10:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 313 - PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business would be HB 313, "An Act relating to preventive maintenance programs required for certain state grants; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR JAMES called on Dennis DeWitt, staff to Representative Eldon Mulder, sponsor of the bill. Number 0327 DENNIS DeWITT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Eldon Mulder, Alaska State Legislature, stated last year he served as the chief of staff for the Deferred Maintenance Task Force. House Bill 313 is an attempt to ensure the entities that receive a capital grant or financing have reasonable preventative maintenance programs in place prior to receiving funds from the legislature. The task force found that there are a significant number of facilities built by municipalities, for example, with state funds that are not being cared for. The same facilities are being presented back to the legislature regularly for funds for improvements. The language in HB 313 is consistent with language in HB 312, a bill that the House State Affairs Committee passed out of committee last week. MR. DeWITT further stated there is a proposed committee substitute for HB 313, Version 0-LS1217\F, Cook, dated 2/9/98. The most significant change is the effective date from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999. It would give recipients a little over a year to get their maintenance programs in order. The bill considers most of the requests from the Department of Education. The department suggested using the language "building" instead of "all buildings" to allow for flexibility and to not include sheds and other kinds of buildings. CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute. Number 0620 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 313, Version 0-LS1217\F, Cook, dated 2/9/98. There being no objection, the committee substitute was adopted. Number 0642 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked Mr. DeWitt whether there were any recommendations from the Department of Education that were not adopted. Number 0660 MR. DeWITT replied, "Yes." He said the recommendation to match Section 37.05.315, 316 and 317 with Section 37.06.010 and 37.06.020 was considered redundant and not necessary. The request to move eligibility considerations to the ranking arena was considered a policy call (Section 14.11.011 to 14.11.013(b)). In other words, should a preventative maintenance program be a prerequisite or considered lower in the process. Number 0850 MICHAEL MORGAN, PMP Manager, Facilities Section, Education Support Services, Department of Education, stated Section 14.11.011 has a requirement for a preventative maintenance program for school districts. It is considered an eligibility requirement. The department suggested the requirement move to the scoring arena because of the additional requirements to allow for a judgement on the full range of the implementation of a program. Number 0886 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Morgan whether there is already a requirement in place for a maintenance program. MR. MORGAN replied there is a statutory requirement for school districts to have a preventative maintenance program in place. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Morgan whether that makes this redundant. MR. MORGAN replied not exactly. This expands the scope of what is required within the preventative maintenance program. It requires it to be a formal program. It includes a renewal replacement schedule for components of facilities and adds energy management - two very big issues. Number 0955 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ stated the term "preventative maintenance" is not defined anywhere in statute. MR. MORGAN stated he thinks there is a statutory definition. If there isn't a statutory definition, there is a regulatory definition. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated the term "regular maintenance" is defined to protect the school's structure. Number 1033 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the language "evidence acceptable" in the bill is acceptable to the department. Anytime there is a requirement like that without a standard, it can vary depending on the individuals involved. Number 1060 MR. DeWITT replied that is true. It doesn't really matter how tight the language is because there will be some difference from person-to-person. The extent of its preciseness is a regulatory definition. The folks that reviewed the bill from the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs think it is consistent with the kinds of programs recognized by maintenance professionals and are comfortable with the requirement. Number 1100 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated, "The question I have would be like telling the jury, 'Well, if the evidence is acceptable to you, you can convict.'" That is not an implementation of a standard to provide a good direction. Number 1117 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he has spent half of his life as a maintenance engineer. There couldn't be a standard drawn tight enough to satisfy what Representative Berkowitz is after and have it be applicable to the incredible range of facilities out there. It is a shame that it is even necessary. Any professional manager of any facility that has a sense of responsibility ought to be doing these sorts of things. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Morgan what is currently being done now to audit the present statutory conformance. Number 1270 MR. MORGAN replied currently school districts submit to the Department of Education on a yearly basis requests for capital projects on existing facilities. They have to inform the department of any preventative maintenance programs and how they have been implemented. They also have to demonstrate their effectiveness. The department then evaluates the full range of information presented. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Morgan whether the department is auditing the paper trail and not the actual facility on the ground. MR. MORGAN replied, "Yes." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Morgan whether the department has considered the energy management required in the bill. MR. MORGAN replied the department has not throughly considered how it may be implemented. Number 1357 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that as the legislature goes forward with deferred maintenance and transfers huge amounts of cash, he is sure that it will be rewarding communities that are doing a poor job. It is a public policy dilemma. He asked Mr. DeWitt whether the issue was discussed in the task force. Number 1400 MR. DeWITT replied, "You hit the toughest issue that the task force tried to grapple with right on the head." The task force ultimately decided that there should be some punishment for schools in bad shape and some reward for schools in good shape, but the people who suffer are the kids, not the people who make the mistakes. In terms of public buildings, there is enough finger pointing and blame to go around between the administration, legislature, and everybody who is part of the problem. The task force decided that the best thing to do is to try to put these things into place so that we don't have to revisit them. Number 1475 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated fire is still one of the scourges of the Arctic and sub-Arctic. He asked whether there should be a requirement for a fire prevention/suppression plan. Number 1503 MR. MORGAN replied the state fire marshall about one and a half years ago passed emergency regulations requiring a sprinkler system in all schools. Thus, any new school or one undergoing renovation needs a sprinkler system in order to get the plan approved by the state fire marshall. Number 1535 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Morgan whether the requirements under Section 14.11.011 are working. MR. MORGAN replied they appear to be working. He said he has seen an improvement in the plans offered and an incremental process in the evidence to show that the school districts are doing a better job. Number 1568 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the objective is for better public facilities, not a better process. Are we or are we not doing a better job? Are we or are we not doing a good job under the existing statute in maintaining our facilities? MR. MORGAN replied in many instances we could be doing a better job. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated one of the proposed changes results in better public facilities. MR. MORGAN stated over the long term they will. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Morgan how is that. MR. MORGAN replied primarily because of (B) on page 2, line 21 of the bill. It starts to address the full range of the components of a building. Typically, people think of the mechanical side of deferred maintenance such as motors and pumps. Subsection (B) asks people to consider the mechanical systems, as well as the walls, floors, roofs, interiors and exteriors, for example. It asks for preventative maintenance on the full range of the components and because many of those components have been left out of traditional preventative maintenance programs it should help in the long run. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Morgan whether it would help prevent some of the major problems. MR. MORGAN replied that's correct. Maintenance problems would be caught before becoming too aggravated. He cited a leaky roof as an example. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Morgan whether he is saying there needs to be more resources put into maintenance. There is a big difference between studying it and doing it. The only thing that he has seen come from the task force is setting a new record for studying the problem. He has not seen any commitment to fix a single thing. Representative Vezey said, "If we're going to write a directive that's going to improve maintenance, let's not direct it at the people who are trying to do the maintenance. From my experience traveling all over the state, there are some pretty competent people working at these facilities, and given the resources they would do an incredible job and know when to ask for help when they need it. But, what about the school boards and the legislature and the municipal assemblies that act to provide the means to do this. Are we giving them guidelines? Are we giving them mandates? It just doesn't do any good to berate the facility's manager because he works out of the budget." MR. MORGAN agreed one of the problems with the maintenance issue is funding. Number 1772 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how this ties into the proposal for a prototypical design. Number 1784 MR. DeWITT replied a prototypical design is getting a quality facility that is easier to maintain including implementation of a maintenance program. Number 1814 CHAIR JAMES stated one method to make maintenance easier is the choice of components that go into a school. In other words, the components should be uniform and the parts should be available in the state. In addition, there is a problem because some schools are owned by boroughs and some schools are owned by the state. She believes, personally, that the legislature has a bigger responsibility for the schools owned by the state. The legislature, therefore, has the authority to require components that work well for a better overall plan. Number 1892 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he doesn't understand requiring a plan for a prototypical design when there isn't anything in the bill that mandates the authority to fund a maintenance program. Number 1916 MR. DeWITT stated HB 315, addresses the issue of accomplishing what Representative Vezey is driving at - operating appropriations for maintenance. The task force heard a lot about whether or not the legislature intends for the money that it has appropriated to be used for building maintenance or program implementation. An administrator can look at the money and decide where to spend it. Number 1968 CHAIR JAMES stated the same amount of money under the foundation formula for maintenance has been given to the bush schools. Some are doing a good job while some are not. There is the issue of making sure that schools focus on maintenance. In addition, there has been a suggestion for a line-item in the budget on maintenance. She agrees that there is no point in putting in a plan if it is not funded. Number 2011 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN M. IVAN asked whether the department provides technical guidance for the folks in the Rural Education Attendance Areas (REAAs). He said he doesn't believe that they should not have a preventative maintenance program in place. Number 2064 MR. MORGAN replied the department published a handbook on preventative maintenance last year. The department also forwards the best programs to requesters for ideas to improve their own programs. Number 2102 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked Mr. Morgan whether a program gets funded if the department doesn't agree with its preventative maintenance plan. MR. MORGAN replied currently that is not the case. There are two aspects involved - a statutory requirement for a preventative maintenance program in order to be eligible for funding, and a ranking based on effectiveness. Thus, if there is a program but it is not very effective, it means it might not be ranked as high as a program that is very effective. Number 2133 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked whether the proposed committee substitute caps the matching grant program. MR. DeWITT replied, "Yes." REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he doesn't have a problem with that. It has worked well in his community. The blueprints and building plans have to be reviewed by the fire marshall. Number 2155 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated there are a limited number of tools and he sees the bill as a precondition as a good steward for a new facility. Number 2206 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, for clarification, whether Sections 2 and 3 refer to capital grant programs. Number 2227 MR. DeWITT replied, "Correct." The bill requires the same from grants made to municipalities, not just schools. The task force found that there are a lot of municipalities that get facilities through state grants that are coming back to the legislature for repairs and maintenance. The intent is for a broad coverage so that when state funds go out, they go to folks who have a commitment to maintain facilities to save money over the long term. Number 2266 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wondered how the bill would apply to an obsolescent facility. Number 2284 MR. DeWITT replied the notion of a preventive maintenance program applies to all facilities. It probably wouldn't save a building that is obsolete. There would probably be a request for a new grant at which time the bill would require a preventative maintenance program. The bill doesn't mandate a maintenance program in every building today, but it does mandate one when additional money is being asked for through grants. Number 2359 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked when did the task force figure the money would get in the mail. Number 2368 MR. DeWITT replied through the appropriation process. The next bill scheduled today, HB 315, will help clarify the appropriation process and focus dollars on maintenance. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked whether that would be this year or next year. MR. DeWITT replied that with the changing price of oil and to the extent that there are limited operational funds, there will probably be limited capital funds as well. Number 2397 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that there seems to be a good carrot-and-stick approach for the state to use vis- -vis the municipalities, but he doesn't see a reciprocal requirement on the state. There isn't conditional language for the state to fund any maintenance. Number 2421 CHAIR JAMES stated the funds are all part of the appropriation process. Funding cannot be mandated. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied the legislature can require the Department of Education to budget for it. It is a separate issue, however, whether or not the legislature funds it. Number 2440 MR. MORGAN stated the department budgets for capital requests for department facilities such as Mt. Edgecumbe. The process for capital requests for school districts is laid out in Section 14.11 and is a separate process. It is not part of the department's request. It is part of the governor's capital program. Number 2464 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that if the state says to any agency to do something then it should be required to respond at some point from the legislature. Number 2470 CHAIR JAMES stated there are a lot of unfunded mandates. She agrees that they aren't good. Having gone to the bush areas... TAPE 98-21, SIDE B Number 0000 CHAIR JAMES continued. They all have the same amount of money from the foundation formula to spend on facilities. Therefore, putting the focus on the need for it will shore up the ability to get things done. In addition, the component of simplifying maintenance and making it less expensive in the long run will also maximize the use of funds. Number 0027 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated Section 2 addresses municipal facilities and the state's contribution. MR. MORGAN replied, "Correct." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated Section 3 addresses state or agency facilities. MR. MORGAN replied Section 3 addresses unincorporated boroughs. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated a mandate is not being put on state agencies. MR. MORGAN stated HB 312 accomplishes that. Number 0083 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. DeWitt what would happen if the legislature appropriated money for an unmatched grant program. He asked if the department would then have to say no if there isn't a plan in place acceptable to the department. Whose vision or statute would prevail? Would the appropriation prevail over this requirement or does this requirement prevail over the appropriation so that the department has to say no? Number 0111 MR. DeWITT replied, in his judgement, this would prevail. There are a number of conditions prior to getting dollars from the state. The legislature makes an appropriation and asks the agency to make sure that it is in proper form before it goes out. CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to move the bill out of the committee. Number 0145 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move the proposed committee substitute for HB 313, version 0-LS1217\F, Cook, dated 2/9/98, out of the committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHB 313(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. HB 313 - PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT Number 1085 CHAIR JAMES informed the committee members that it has been brought to her attention that there was a fiscal note for HB 313, which was heard earlier in the meeting. She said the fiscal note, from the Department of Education, wasn't in her file. It is for $88.3. She said she would like a motion to make that part of the bill that was moved. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said, "So moved." There being no objection, the fiscal note moved with the bill.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|