Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/09/2009 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| State Crime Laboratory Proposal – Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 9, 2009
8:42 a.m.
8:42:28 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Hawker called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 8:42 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas, Jr., Vice-Chair
Representative Allan Austerman
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Les Gara
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Reggie Joule
ALSO PRESENT
Orin Dym, Forensic Laboratory Supervisor, Crime Laboratory
Supervisor, Department of Public Safety; Leo von Scheben,
Commissioner, Department of Transportation; Randall Ruaro,
Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Joel St. Aubin, Chief of Public Facilities, Director of
Public Facilities; Matt Tanaka, Engineer, Construction and
Operations, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; Bill Lawrie, Architect, McClaren, Wilson, &
Lawrie
SUMMARY
8:48:23 AM
^State Crime Laboratory Proposal - Update
ORIN DYM, FORENSIC LABORATORY MANAGER, CRIME LABORATORY
SUPERVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, was available to
answer questions.
Representative Gara suggested that cost was the primary
issue in regards to building a new crime laboratory.
Representative Kelly noted that he had concerns about how
the state could make best use of the private sector. He
acknowledged the need for a crime laboratory.
8:53:08 AM
Representative Gara voiced concern about the square footage
of the proposed laboratory and the construction cost of $10
million per 380 square feet. He wondered if options were
looked at regarding expansion of the existing laboratory.
8:54:11 AM
Representative Crawford did not question the need for a new
crime laboratory. He wondered if there were areas of the
laboratory that were working well.
Representative Austerman pointed out that he was not present
at previous discussions regarding the issue.
8:55:33 AM
Co-Chair Hawker shared concerns brought up by the committee
during previous hearings. He was interested in finding out
more information about the functional aspect of the crime
laboratory and how domestic abuse ties into its mission.
Co-Chair Hawker asked for more information regarding the
activities of the crime laboratory and asked why a new
building is needed.
Mr. Dym shared his history with crime laboratories in
Arizona before coming to Alaska in 2007. He related that the
laboratory had already grown past its planned expansion
(34,000 square feet) and had a total staff of 41 when he
began his job. The laboratory has a multiple of service or
sections: control substance, blood alcohol, breath alcohol,
DNA, firearm tool mark, and latent print analysis; but there
is no section for toxicology analysis of drugs in blood.
Currently, severe cases are sent to the Washington state
toxicology laboratory and are paid for through a highway
safety grant. Toxicology samples related to sexual assault
or violent crimes are not eligible under the grant, which
only covers samples related to traffic incidences. There are
limited trace analysis capabilities for hair and fiber
comparisons; there is a whole world of trace analysis that
cannot occur. Document analysis is another area that is
absent.
9:00:00 AM
Mr. Dym observed that as a rule of thumb crime laboratories
are designed with a 1,000 square feet per analyst. This
ratio was derived by a group of forensic laboratory
directors approximately 25 years ago. While informal, it has
proved to be a fairly adequate estimate. With 39 staff (2
staff members operate remotely), a minimum of 39,000 square
feet would be appropriate to cover the current functions
without expansion. The mission statement used for the design
was to look at the state's needs and design a full service
crime laboratory that meets the needs of the state with a 20
year horizon and capacity for expansion.
9:02:20 AM
Mr. Dym reported that the design was in progress when he
came on board. He scaled down the head count by 10 people
because he felt the initial staff projections were high. He
thought that toxicology analysis was important and should be
brought into the laboratory. He noted that toxicology
requests tend to mirror requests for blood alcohol analysis.
Most of the state of Alaska's alcohol analysis is done
through breath alcohol. The state receives about 600 blood
alcohol requests per year; he estimated there should also be
approximately 600 toxicology requests per year. The state
only receives between 300 and 350 toxicology samples; he
questioned where the other 300 samples are. He concluded
that there is a hesitancy to submit toxicology samples
because it is not a locally offered service.
9:04:47 AM
Mr. Dym related that trace analyses are currently sent out
to federal laboratories for analysis. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation is more backed up than the state of Alaska.
These cases have to compete nationally for attention. It can
be several years before results from trace analyses are
seen.
9:05:53 AM
Mr. Dym reported that the crime laboratory would be an
84,000 square foot facility, with 20,000 of mechanical
space. He discussed options to expand the facility.
Co-Chair Hawker asked if he was referring to a modular
expansion to the existing facility plan. Mr. Dym affirmed.
Mr. Dym reported that he has analyzed the possibility of
expanding the current facility. The DNA section could be
expanded, but he stressed that the laboratory must be
functional during the expansion. The expansion would cost
approximately $40 million, take three years to complete and
would only buy about seven years' use.
9:09:24 AM
Mr. Dym emphasized that expanding the existing facility does
not account for the outdated laboratory equipment, which is
over 20 years old. It is not possible to maintain an
environment that is safe from contamination in the current
building. The current building does not have the mechanical
equipment need to examine DNA samples.
9:11:18 AM
Representative Gara thought that 1,000 square feet per
person was excessive. He wondered if there were laboratories
that worked efficiently in less space. Mr. Dym acknowledged
the current laboratory works in 600 square feet and does a
great job.
Representative Gara wondered why the larger space was needed
if the laboratory was currently doing a great job. Mr. Dym
shared a personal story to show that working in a small
space works, but "does not make it right". He pointed out
that the integrity of the laboratory work is compromised by
the current small space. A large amount of space is used for
storing evidence. He gave examples of why a larger space is
needed for samples.
9:16:23 AM
Mr. Dym emphasized that it is not possible to maintain the
integrity of evidence in the current laboratory. There is
danger of contamination. He described, in particular, the
issues surrounding DNA. The techniques are validated by the
limits of detection, which is limited by space.
9:18:13 AM
Co-Chair Hawker pointed out that technology has advanced
significantly and questioned if a new crime laboratory would
be advantageous to criminal prosecutions. Mr. Dym affirmed
and explained that the current laboratory's limitations are
seen most clearly when the sample size is small, such as in
a DNA evidenced rape case. There are cases where the
evidence is not able to be analyzed as thoroughly as needed.
9:20:45 AM
Co-Chair Hawker asked if there were outsources available.
Mr. Dym pointed to 1982 when all samples were sent out of
state. Turnaround time was slow and it was an unacceptable
situation. There are times today when samples have to be
outsourced, such as DNA samples, and the results were not
acceptable due to contaminations. It is also difficult to
find a quality outside laboratory due to contamination
issues. When profit is involved, quality is often
compromised.
9:24:28 AM
Mr. Dym reported that toxicology results are obtained by
contracting out with another crime laboratory. The biggest
difficulty is requiring testifiers from the outside
laboratory to travel to Alaska, which is very expensive.
Those analysts must cross validate the data. He discussed
the different types of laboratories and the quality control.
9:27:16 AM
Mr. Dym spoke of problems when sending samples to a private
laboratory. He opined that sending samples out of state is
not the best solution.
9:28:31 AM
Mr. Dym addressed Representative Crawford's question about
which areas are working well. Mr. Dym observed that the
laboratory had a backlog of 8,000 criminal samples.
Additional personnel were hired and trained for a minimum of
six month, per federal guidelines. With these newly trained
technicians, the laboratory is processing 1,500 samples a
month. He expects the backlog to be eliminated by July 1,
2009. The outsourced laboratory could only handle 500
samples a month. He described the crowded work stations and
lack of space for a second robot or a sink. Employees are
working under non-optimal conditions. Certain work cannot be
done due to the facility shortcomings.
9:31:15 AM
Mr. Dym reiterated that some work cannot be done at the
laboratory for lack of space. He described how difficult it
is to analyze a vehicle in the laboratory. The breath
alcohol work has to be stopped when a vehicle is brought
into the room. He addressed drug analysis and the problems
of contamination.
9:32:54 AM
Representative Salmon gave an example of how a suspicious
death in a village is handled. He wondered if the increased
space would address the problem. Mr. Dym reported that the
medical examiner's office handles suspicious deaths. The
laboratory would deal with the evidence of the crime. The
crime laboratory is aware of the sensitivity of collecting
evidence.
Representative Salmon asked if the crime laboratory
contracts with a medical facility. Mr. Dym reported that the
state's medical examiner's facility is next door to the
crime laboratory and they work collaboratively.
Representative Salmon asked if the medical examiner's site
would be increased. Mr. Dym clarified that only the crime
laboratory would be increased.
9:36:53 AM
Co-Chair Hawker wondered if any legislator could tour the
laboratory. Mr. Dym said that with some notice, the
laboratory can be visited. Co-Chair Hawker reported that he
had toured the laboratory and he praised the work they did
there.
9:37:51 AM
Co-Chair Hawker asked the consequence of not expanding the
laboratory or providing the full scope of services. Mr. Dym
replied that the laboratory would continue operating at the
current level. Mr. Dym reported that all positions have been
filled. He pointed to the doubling of alcohol arrests due to
more enforcement in Anchorage.
Mr. Dym stressed that with more enforcement there is more
evidence. There would be an increase in backlogs. More work
would have to be outsourced. He listed statistics about
subpoena results. He saw the problem amplifying.
9:42:50 AM
Representative Austerman spoke of additional police officers
on the street. He pointed out that half the population lives
in Anchorage. He wondered if there had been discussions
about the creation of an Anchorage police department crime
laboratory.
Mr. Dym shared statistics about Anchorage crime. The
Anchorage police department currently processes
fingerprints. One problem with the proliferation of
laboratory services is that those laboratories are not
certified. He gave an example. He predicted that there would
be more laboratories with less quality control if the crime
laboratory is not built.
9:47:00 AM
Mr. Dym talked about intensive annual inspections and
maintained that a commitment to science should follow a
standard.
Representative Austerman referred to other states, which
often have county as well as state facilities. He observed
that Fairbanks and Anchorage are the only communities in
Alaska with their own misdemeanor laws. All other Alaskan
communities are based on state law, which points to the
necessity of a state laboratory.
9:49:10 AM
Representative Gara asked if additional staff would be
needed. Mr. Dym estimated a doubling of demand for services
would require 16 additional staff over 20 years. One
immediate position would be needed to bring toxicology on
line. He pointed out that there could be a cost savings from
the position since they would not need to outsource. Another
maintenance person would also be required. He stressed that
he is not anticipating an immediate build up of staff. An
increase in staff would be tied to an increase in service
requests. Representative Gara suggested additional staff
would be needed to cover the additional services. Mr. Dym
concluded that there may be a need for one more position. He
emphasized the ability to provide cross training. Staff has
several responsibilities within the laboratory. Some
positions would be cross trained; he pointed out that there
is insufficient work for a full time document examiner.
9:53:03 AM
Representative Gara summarized that there would be a need
for one toxicologist and some additional space to provide
the service that currently costs $75,000 in out of state
contracts. He suggested it would cost more than $75,000 for
an in state position. Mr. Dym clarified that Alaska does not
pay its toxicology analyst $75,000 a year, even with
benefits. In addition, there are more than financial costs.
Currently, the state has no ability to prioritize high
priority cases. He stressed the difficulty of prosecuting
cases requiring toxicology evidence in Alaska.
9:55:34 AM
LEO VON SCHEBEN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
provided information. He observed that the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities received a request to
manage the $100 million crime laboratory project.
9:58:40 AM
JOEL ST. AUBIN, CHIEF OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC FACILITIES, via teleconference, provided a brief
overview of the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities' participation. The department was brought onto
the project in 2005 and initiated a contract to do a study
to determine if the existing site could be expanded. The
study, which was completed in a six week period in 2005,
determined that the existing site was not expandable. In
2006, legislation was brought forward for appropriation of
$4.8 million to design a 38,000 square foot building. The
design and programming (to determine services and size)
review began in 2006. The design process was completed in
the fall of 2007, with a recommendation for a 84,000 square
foot facility. The Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities looked at what would be the best contracting
method for the best value. A construction general manager
contractor construction contract was deemed the best
approach. A request for proposal (RFP) for services was
issued July 2007. Nesser Construction was selected in
October 2007 to provide constructability reviews, schedule
analysis and independent cost estimates of the project
during the design phase. The design is expected to be
finished by the end of the month.
10:02:52 AM
MATT TANAKA, ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, via
teleconference, explained that Estimation Incorporated was
hired by the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities to do an additional the cost estimation for the
entire project along with the architect, Livingston Slone
Incorporated (LSI).
Mr. St. Aubin reiterated that there were two independent
cost estimates during the design stage: Estimation
Incorporated and Neeser Construction. Costs are reconciled
at each design stage to discuss quantities and scope of the
project. Another cost estimating firm in Anchorage, HMS, was
contracted at the end of January 2009, based on the 65
percent cost estimate, to review the work done by the other
two firms. The costs were deemed by HMS to be consistent
with the degree of difficulty of the project and cost of
work in Anchorage.
10:05:20 AM
Representative Kelly pointed out that there the current
facility is 19,000 square feet; the first recommendation was
for 38,000 square feet; and the current proposal is for
84,000 square feet. Mr. St. Aubin agreed that the current
square footage is 19,000 and reported that the 38,000 square
foot number comes from the 2005 preliminary study. The
current plan calls for 83,000 square feet.
Mr. Tanaka addressed the need for additional footage. He
explained that the initial study was not a determination of
need. The intent of the 2005 study was to determine the
possibility of expanding the existing laboratory. The 2005
study projected a need of 38,000 feet to meet the needs of
the staff to 2020. The study was completed in a little over
a week, with inadequate resources to determine the need for
a state laboratory. Current staff is at the projected 2020
level, which underscores the deficiency of the projection.
An industry level of effort estimated that a 84,000 square
foot facility would be needed by 2020.
10:09:53 AM
Representative Kelly understood that the estimates had
changed. Commissioner Von Scheben acknowledged his concerns.
10:11:58 AM
Representative Gara thought the project was too expensive at
$100 million. He asked if the existing space could be
refurbished and a warehouse built.
Mr. Tanaka explained that the initial study looked at
renovation. However, the existing laboratory cannot be
renovated while it is in use. A temporary laboratory would
have to be built during the renovation. He concluded that it
would be more feasible to build a new laboratory than to
build a temporary laboratory during renovations. He
addressed the issue of expense and cost effectiveness. A
large storage area is needed to meet DNA standards and
storage space.
10:16:05 AM
BILL LAWRIE, ARCHITECT, MCCLAREN, WILSON & LAWRIE, provided
information via teleconference. He recounted his experience
working as an architect on crime laboratories. He counseled
not to cut programs that will have to be redesigned and
rebuilt when costs are higher. He stressed that the current
laboratory has reached the limit of how much space can be
compressed. The needs assessment, considered the need to
decompress the space for personnel and equipment. Additional
space for new programs was also considered and projections
were made for future needs.
10:22:31 AM
Mr. Lawrie was comfortable with the program and the long-
range plan. He concluded that the site should be good for
the next 50 years.
Co-Chair Hawker asked if the project was over-designed. Mr.
Lawrie thought not. He related that the building can be
expanded if needed in the future.
10:24:16 AM
In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Mr.
Lawrie noted that they designed a 40,000 laboratory that
covers the eastern area in the state of Washington. Co-Chair
Hawker asked how Alaska compares to out-of-state facilities.
Mr. Lawrie reported that there are many more crime
laboratories in other states at the state and local levels.
This laboratory is the only laboratory in the state of
Alaska and it is difficult to compare. Co-Chair Hawker
concluded that there are fixed costs regardless of the
numbers served. Mr. Lawrie agreed.
10:27:31 AM
Co-Chair Hawker observed that the executive branch
introduced a general obligation bond request to the
legislature for $100 million in the previous legislative
session. The legislature raised several questions and asked
for explanations of need. The executive branch has not made
a similar request in the current year.
RANDALL RUARO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR, recalled that concerns were raised in regards to
size, scope and cost. The administration has obtained the
lease, which took five months of negotiations with the
municipality. The administration has advanced toward the
ultimate goal, while completing a thorough review of the
cost and scope. There are still questions regarding the most
efficient use of the building, whether shift work could
alleviate crowding, and ways to fill unused space built in
anticipation of future need. He reiterated that the lease
agreement had been reach, and noted that site preparation is
occurring. The administration is close to finishing up the
due diligence process.
10:31:14 AM
Co-Chair Hawker wondered what process the administration
underwent for due diligence. Mr. Ruaro reported that
questions were raised regarding size and scope of the
project. The administration entered into an independent
review. The review left some unanswered questions and was
returned with a request for more information, which he
believes is forthcoming. However, the review will not delve
into the question of shift work or use of current space.
Co-Chair Hawker pointed out it has been over a year. He
asked when the legislature would have a chance to evaluate
the independent review of the project again. Mr. Ruaro
thought that the follow up questions would be answered in
the next 30 - 60 days and the full report would be released
at that time. The follow up questions will address size and
scope.
10:34:01 AM
Representative Gara was not satisfied that there had been
sufficient cost estimates done to upgrade the existing
facility as opposed to building a new 84,000 square foot
facility, or shipping out evidence. Mr. Ruaro noted that the
review would cover all the options.
Representative Gara suggested a parking garage for
additional parking space. He remained dubious about the
cost.
10:37:12 AM
Representative Crawford stood convinced in regards to the
need for a new facility, but stressed that Alaskans also
need to be convinced that the money is being spent wisely.
He suggested that parts of the project might be phased in
but did not want to endanger the bigger goal of getting the
proper facility.
Mr. Ruaro reported that the administration shares those
concerns. The review is on-going and thorough.
Representative Kelly was convinced the project should go
forth. He asked about site preparation.
Mr. Ruaro related that there was a lease addendum regarding
site preparation. The lease addendum allows for
reimbursement to the state if the laboratory were not built.
10:40:30 AM
Representative Kelly asked about the chain of evidence
technology. He hoped that available technology was being
clearly considered.
10:42:29 AM
Co-Chair Hawker addressed delay costs. A one-year delay
would cost over $11 million. He wondered if the evaluation
takes the cost of delay into consideration. Mr. Ruaro viewed
it as a potential cost, not a fixed cost. He reported a
downward trend in construction costs.
Co-Chair Hawker observed that the legislature would continue
its due diligence.
10:43:58 AM
Co-Chair Hawker referred to a joint meeting with the
governor in the previous week. He recalled a statement by
the governor's chief of staff, which indicated that the
building was too big and cost too much. He wondered if it
was a conclusive statement or a statement of concern.
Mr. Ruaro felt it was a statement of concern. A thorough
analysis is forthcoming. Co-Chair Hawker looked forward to
receiving the report and moving the project forward.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CrimeLabOverview.pdf |
HFIN 4/9/2009 8:30:00 AM |