Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/18/1998 01:45 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 18, 1998
1:45 P.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 33, Side 1
TAPE HFC 98 - 33, Side 2
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:45 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Grussendorf
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Gary Wilken; Michael Morgan, Department of
Education; Doug Green, Architect; Alaska Professional Design
Council; Marc Wheeler, Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council; Juanita Hensley, Legislative Liaison, Division of
Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Safety; Anne Carpeneti,
Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section, Criminal
Division, Department of Law.
SUMMARY
HCR 24 Relating to the use of prototype designs in public
school construction projects.
CSHCR 24 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
impact note by the Department of Education.
HJR 53 Relating to support for federal legislation
providing for the continuation of the University
of Alaska by the conveyance of federal land to the
university.
HJR 53 was out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a zero fiscal note for the
University of Alaska.
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 24
Relating to the use of prototype designs in public
school construction projects.
SENATOR GARY WILKEN testified in support of HCR 24. He
noted that several schools were built in the Fairbanks
School District using a prototypical design. The use of
prototypical designs for elementary schools in the Fairbanks
School District was successful. The Deferred Maintenance
Task Force helped to investigate the use of prototypical
schools.
Senator Wilken explained that, under the legislation, three
prototypical designs would be created for kindergarten to
6th or 8th grade schools. He questioned why the state of
Alaska should build a school that houses 260 students for
$28 million dollars in Kashunamiut when a school that houses
600 students can be built in Fairbanks for $9.9 million
dollars. He suggested that the use of prototypical schools
would allow more schools to be built. He pointed out that
the use of prototypical schools would reduce maintenance
costs. He stressed that prototypical components could be
used in areas where a prototypical school is not feasible.
Senator Wilker referred to remarks by Len Mackler, Director,
Physical Plant Department, Fairbanks North Star Borough
(FNSB) School District. He noted that Mr. Mackler indicated
that some individuals do not support the legislation because
it is a perceived threat to their industry. Mr. Macklin
stated that prototypical schools take one year less to
build, which saves one year of inflation costs.
Architectural and engineering designs that used to cost 10
to 12 percent cost 5 percent for prototypical schools.
Competitive bids are better for each new school. There are
few change orders for prototypical schools. Each school is
improved. Full advantage is taken of technical upgrades.
Start up problems are minimal. Standardization of machine
components has lowered the maintenance in the Fairbanks
School District from approximately 18 to 10 percent. He
stressed that the challenge is to produce a prototypical
school that works so well that school districts will want to
use the Alaska standard school.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Senator
Wilken observed that all of the prototypical schools in the
Fairbanks School District serve 600 students. The last
school was built in 1997.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that most Fairbanks schools could
be built on flat land. He questioned if a standard school
could be built in rural areas with geographical limitations.
Senator Wilken thought that there would not be a problem.
He observed that one prototypical school in Fairbanks was
built on pilings. He noted that three designs would be
developed to accommodate other areas of the State. He
suggested that different roof designs may be present. He
observed that rural schools, such as Buckland, would be
smaller and easier to construct. He pointed out that
components would be shipped to rural areas.
In response to a question by Representative Martin, Senator
Wilken did not think there was a downside to the proposal.
He acknowledged that architects may see it as a threat to
their livelihood. He emphasized that 11 schools could be
built were 10 would have been previously. He acknowledged
concerns regarding local involvement. He questioned if it
is incumbent on the State to produce a monument to a
particular town, city or village through its education
system. He stated that he supports the one-percent for arts
program and emphasized that art can reflect local
involvement.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Senator
Wilken stated that he did not object to the deletion of
"elementary". He observed that some rural schools are K -
12th grades.
Representative Davies noted that there is a proposed
technical change to include a statutory citation for the
Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review Committee.
Senator Wilken spoke in favor of the proposed change. Co-
Chair Therriault clarified that the Committee has prepared a
proposed committee substitute that would incorporate both of
the proposed changes discussed by Representative Davies.
MIKE MORGAN, Facilities Manager, Department of Education
acknowledged that prototypical schools result in design
savings. He noted that when there is a limited contractor
pool there are savings on construction and design costs. He
acknowledged that adapting to varying climates and sites
would be challenging. There are problems involving roofs
and varying size requirements. Another challenge is the
issue of varying educational programs. He observed that
there are limitations in prototypical components. He
emphasized that many of the proposed school capital projects
are additions to existing schools. The Department of
Education supports the legislation as a cost containment
measure. He pointed out that there are other cost saving
measures, which might be of benefit to explore.
Representative Davies clarified that a set of prototypical
designs would be developed to meet varying climatic
conditions. Mr. Morgan noted that designs would be
developed for regional differences and sizes. Different
size gymnasiums and room configurations could be designed
separately and attached to schools.
Representative Davies expressed concern that there may be an
effort to create a design that incorporates all
possibilities. He noted that Fairbanks focused on building
one school and augmented that design to create a
prototypical design. He asked if the Department of
Education could use the money that would be needed to build
a particular school and augment it to create a prototypical
design.
Mr. Morgan observed that there is no reason a prototypical
design could not be developed in conjunction with the
construction of a particular school.
Representative Mulder observed that several schools in the
Northwest Arctic Borough School District have expressed a
willingness to be the first test case. He emphasized that
school districts will be expected to have a maintenance
program in place. He asked if the March 15, 1998 report
would include cost containment suggestions.
Mr. Morgan stated that a number of cost containment ideas
would be included in the report. The Legislature will be
able to choose from a variety of options. He observed that
British Columbia is containing costs by specifying allowable
costs per square foot and requiring value analysis.
DOUG GREEN, ARCHITECT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AND
THE ALASKA PROFESSIONAL DESIGN COUNCIL testified from
Anchorage on HCR 24. He stated that most states that have
attempted a prototypical design program for their school
programs have not been successful. He spoke in support of
standardized design components and emphasized their
flexibility. He observed that classrooms, gymnasiums,
locker configuration and mechanical systems could be
designed as prototypical components. He expressed concern
that it would be difficult to create a design that would
meet a variety of conditions
Mr. Green discussed liability. He observed concerns by
major insurance companies. He observed that liability would
be clouded if designs were modified by other architects or
engineers that did not create the original design. An
architect is liable for designs that he stamps.
He encouraged the Committee to replace "prototypical" with
"standardized design component".
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed
committee substitute (copy on file). He noted that the
proposed committee substitute speaks to the identifying
components within a prototypical design that can be
standardized and incorporated into school designs when a
prototypical design may not be appropriate. Multi-purpose
rooms that would serve 50 - 100 students, such as gymnasiums
and cafeterias, could be designed separately. Additional
classrooms could be added later.
Mr. Green emphasized that the use of "standardized design
components" would not prevent the creation of a prototypical
design composed of design components.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr.
Green stated that he has attempted to secure the 1991, state
of Georgia, Department of Education survey relating to use
of prototypical designs in 49 states. He observed that the
state of California had a law in the 1950's that required
that all state owned buildings be conformed by their Office
of Architec and Construction. Indiana mandated that
elementary schools be built on a stock plan. He emphasized
that many of the laws were implemented in the 1950's and
1960's and repealed in the 1970's.
Representative Davies noted that the resolution is not a
mandate to school districts.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr.
Green stated that he was not aware of any insurance problems
resulting from the use of prototypical designs in Fairbanks
or Anchorage. He noted that the same firm that created the
prototypical design replicated the design on different sites
for the school district.
Representative Davies observed that a primary architect
reviews the design package and takes responsibility for
implementation of the design at a particular site. Mr.
Green noted that architects do not usually stamp a room
design if it is not connected with a building project.
Multiple room designs that can be utilized by another
designer would not have to be stamped by the original
designer.
Representative Martin stressed that local school districts
must be responsible for paying expenses above what the State
feels is reasonable. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that
the resolution requests information from the Department of
Education regarding incentives to lead school districts
toward the use of prototypical designs. He stressed that
the intent is to lead people to the concept and not punish
them for doing something else.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Therriault reviewed changes incorporated in the
committee substitute. "State and" was added on page 1, line
12 of CSHCR 24 (STA) to reflect the fact that most schools
are constructed with a combination of state and local funds.
The resolves on page 2 were reordered. Language regarding
prototypical schools was placed before language relating to
components by moving lines 24 - 27 to line 19. The report
date was moved from March 1, 1998 to March 15, 1998.
Language referred to by Representative Davies was
incorporated. Other changes reflect sentence structure.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHCR 24 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note.
CSHCR 24 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Education.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 53
Relating to support for federal legislation providing
for the continuation of the University of Alaska by the
conveyance of federal land to the university.
Representative Kelly, Sponsor, noted that HJR 53 supports
federal Senate Bill 660, by Senator Murkowski, which would
convey 250,000 acres of federal land to the University of
Alaska.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 - 33, Side 2)
Representative Kelly maintained that the state of Alaska
received a smaller proportion of federal land for education
than any other state. In 1913, the state of Alaska was
granted 330,000 acres. Only approximately 110,000 acres
were conveyed. He maintained that it is time to give the
University of Alaska more money through land management. He
asserted that the University has done a good job of managing
their lands.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the state of Alaska
would match the federal land grant, acre by acre. He
observed that there is a possibility that another 250,000
acres could be traded for university land held in national
parks.
MARC WHEELER, SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL (SEACC)
testified in opposition to HJR 53. He provided members with
a copy of his written testimony and a copy of SEACC's
statement before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee on September 11, 1997.
He observed that SEACC is a coalition of fifteen local
communities, volunteer conservation groups in twelve
Southeast Alaska communities, from Ketchikan to Yakutat.
Members include commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans,
hunters and guides, tourism and recreation business owners,
value-added wood product manufacturers, and Alaskans from
all walks of life. He maintained that SEACC is dedicated to
safeguarding the integrity of Southeast Alaska's unsurpassed
natural environment while providing for balanced,
sustainable use of our region's resources.
He noted while SEACC supports adequate funding of the
University of Alaska by the Alaska State Legislature that
SEACC strongly opposes S.660. He stated that as amended by
the Senate Energy Committee on September, 1997, S.660 would
allow the University of Alaska to select at least 250,000
acres of National Forests and other federal land within
Alaska that are not "conservation system units" (as defined
in ANILCA (Public Law 96-487). These include National
Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, and
Wilderness Areas or Legislated LUD II areas protected by the
Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 (TTRA). Up to 250,000
additional acres of National Forest and other federal land
could be selected if matched by an equal acreage from State
lands. Under this bill, half a million acres of public
lands, including lands within the Tongass and Chugach
National Forests, could be selected for clearcutting and
other damaging uses.
Mr. Wheeler asserted that the University has never acted as
careful stewards because it has been forced to squeeze as
much revenue from their lands as possible. He maintained
that the University would select lands, which they can turn
into fast cash. He alleged that the University would
"target Tongass old-growth timberlands and level them as
quickly as possible". He asserted that the University does
not manage for multiple use, but instead manages "their
lands much like private lands -- laying down massive
clearcuts and exporting round logs, while placing the
absolute minimum protections on fish and wildlife habitat."
He noted that the University hired Wasser and Winters, an
out-of-state firm, to log its timber holdings near Cape
Yakataga. According to the Alaska Department of Labor, over
70 percent of Wasser and Winters' employees in 1995 were
non-residents.
Mr. Wheeler concluded that the legislation threatens all
parts of the Tongass not permanently protected by Congress.
He observed that 10 Southeast Alaskan communities and 2
tribal governments have gone on record opposing this
legislation.
Mr. Wheeler observed that the Morrill Act of 1862 created
the land grant system of colleges and universities. This
Act granted lands based on states' population, not size.
Alaska ranks 48th in the size of federal land grants given
for education. Alaska also ranks 49th in terms of
population. The University currently holds roughly 140,000
acres of fee simple land and 173,326 acres of investment
property in all. He maintained that "with this ample land
grant and adequate funding from the State of Alaska, our
University system should be able to provide quality
education for all Alaskans".
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the University's management
has been in accordance with the state's Forest Practices
Act. He maintained that the Forest Practices Act is
considered to be the "Cadillac" of forest practices
legislation. Mr. Wheeler replied that there are minimal
buffers on fish streams and protections for wildlife
habitat. He referred to helicopter logging operations in
Ketchikan.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr.
Wheeler acknowledged that the University of Alaska is not
required to clear-cut lands. He asserted that "the
University's land trust is required to manage for the
benefit of that trust, which requires it to make the most
money possible...their interpretation to that has been to
clear cut and export to round logs to make the most
money..."
Representative Davies asked if Mr. Wheeler was maintaining
that the University has never acted as a careful steward of
their lands. Mr. Wheeler stated that he could only judge by
the examples in Southeast Alaska. Representative Davies
pointed out that in the University has entered into
negotiated stakeholder processes with SEACC and other
environmental communities on some Southeast operations. All
parties agreed to the process that resulted. Mr. Wheeler
maintained that the agreements were driven by the political
realities of the time. He stressed that the legislation
does not require the University to manage their lands in
anyway that is more protective than the national forest. He
stressed that the Tongass Plan has considerable improvements
over fish and wildlife habitat protections. He maintained
that these would be.
Representative Davies ascertained that Mr. Wheeler had not
read the Board of Regents policy with respect to public
comment on land management that was adopted in 1997. He
disagreed with Mr. Wheeler's assertion that the University
is not a careful steward. He maintained that the University
does not adopt clear cutting in a way that is inconsistent
with the Forest Practices Act and careful stewardship.
Representative Grussendorf expressed concern with logging
operations by the University in Southeast Alaska.
Representative Martin MOVED to report HJR 53 out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. Co-Chair
Therriault noted that the House Finance Committee has
submitted a zero fiscal note for the University of Alaska.
He observed that the University supports a zero fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HJR 53 was out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation
and with a zero fiscal note for the University of Alaska.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
House Finance Committee 1 2/18/98
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|