Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/19/2000 09:05 AM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2000
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Cowdery, Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Joe Green
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 445
"An Act relating to a rural school construction and planned
maintenance pilot program; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 445(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 362
"An Act authorizing the exchange of land between the Alaska
Railroad Corporation and Eklutna, Inc., between the Alaska Railroad
Corporation and the United States Department of the Army and the
United States Department of the Air Force, between the Alaska
Railroad Corporation and Chugach Alaska Corporation, and between
the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the Municipality of Anchorage;
and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 445
SHORT TITLE: RURAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/07/00 2920 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
4/07/00 2920 (H) FIN
4/11/00 (H) FIN AT 3:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
4/11/00 (H) Heard & Held
4/11/00 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
4/12/00 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
4/12/00 (H) Moved CSHB 445(FIN) Out of Committee
4/12/00 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
4/13/00 3109 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) 5DP 5NR
4/13/00 3109 (H) DP: MULDER, AUSTERMAN, DAVIS,
WILLIAMS,
4/13/00 3109 (H) PHILLIPS; NR: BUNDE, DAVIES,
4/13/00 3109 (H) GRUSSENDORF, MOSES, FOSTER
4/13/00 3109 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.FIN/DOE)
4/15/00 3186 (H) RLS TO CALENDAR 04/15/00
4/15/00 3186 (H) MOVED TO BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
4/15/00 3205 (H) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/15/00 3205 (H) RETURN TO RLS COMMITTEE
4/17/00 (H) RLS AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/17/00 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 4/18 --
4/18/00 (H) RLS AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/18/00 (H) <Bill Postponed to 4/19 8:00 am>
4/19/00 (H) RLS AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
DALE ANDERSON, Staff
to Representative Mulder
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 507
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the changes encompassed in version
I of HB 445.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-6, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN JOHN COWDERY called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Cowdery, Porter, Green, Berkowitz and Joule.
Representatives Phillips and Kott arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 445-RURAL SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
CHAIRMAN COWDERY announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 445, "An Act relating to a rural school
construction and planned maintenance pilot program; and providing
for an effective date."
Number 0079
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that the committee adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) labeled LS1596\I, Chenoweth/Ford,
4/18/00. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
DALE ANDERSON, Staff to Representative Mulder, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that [the rural school construction and
planned maintenance] pilot project was designed "to create
efficiency in design, firm price proposals and prompt, timely
completion of school [construction] projects in rural Alaska."
There was a [problem], which led to the bill being withdrawn from
the House floor in order to have a meeting in Anchorage. The
changes encompassed in the CS, version I, is the result of that
meeting. He noted that there were 12 members of the professional
design folks, engineers and contractors who developed and signed
off on the language in the CS. He offered to answer any questions.
Number 0242
MR. ANDERSON, upon the request of Representative Phillips, pointed
out that the changes are encompassed on page 2. He explained that
originally there was a list of criteria that the Department of
Education (DOE) would use in its request for proposals (RFP). He
believed that there was a misunderstanding in that [DOE] thought
that "they" were trying to hire contractors and hire a maintenance
program, the designers and the engineers. That was not the case.
The purpose of the bill was to hire a developer who would take a
project from start to finish in a coordinated fashion. Lack of
coordination in the past resulted in losses in scheduling and cost
overruns.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS remarked that one of the largest
controversies is located on page 2, line 8, which originally
referred to a private sector developer. That was amended to refer
to private sector developers in the House Finance Committee. The
current version, version I, now refers to private sector entity or
entities, which is due to an agreement reached by all the groups.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN directed the committee's attention to page 2,
lines 11 and 17, which refer to "proposals" in the plural form. He
asked if that would indicate that this will be competitive and not
a single entity.
MR. ANDERSON informed the committee that the original legislation
was written in the singular form as the drafter said their writing
style is in the singular, which includes the plural. Therefore,
version H added the plural language in order to provide
clarification and allay any fears that this is a sole source [bid].
Mr. Anderson pointed out that language on page 2, lines 11-13, has
be added in order to allow one to bid on one or up to two-thirds of
the building projects. Therefore, one person would not end up with
all of [the projects].
Number 0482
MR. ANDERSON turned to the qualifications. He noted that it was
thought that the original bill included broad language, however
there was some discussion [regarding the qualification language].
Mr. Anderson said that there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference
[between the two versions], it seems to be semantics. The
qualifications listed on page 2, lines 19-24, in version I are fine
and can still achieve some savings by utilizing this coordinated
approach.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to page 2, subsection (d) and
commented that there is no explicit discussion of monetary
competition in monetary terms nor is there any liquidated damages
provision. He asked if there is a reason why those should not be
included in the selection criteria.
MR. ANDERSON responded that he didn't have an answer.
CHAIRMAN COWDERY indicated that [language referring to the
liquidated damages] would be more appropriate in the contract
itself.
MR. ANDERSON answered that he believes that would be included in
the RFP.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS indicated agreement that it should be
included in the RFP.
Number 0587
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired as to why one of the components that
must be addressed by a RFP includes financial management.
MR. ANDERSON stated that financial management is important in order
to manage cash flow during the process of the construction project.
If "we" are going to bond for these, it is important to have the
financial management ability to schedule having the funds available
when needed. Mr. Anderson felt that this is a worthwhile
qualification, which also relates to the operation being bondable.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to page 2, line 9, which refers
to a private sector entity or entities. He noted that most of the
discussion that he has had in regard to privatization has allowed
for the possibility of public sector competition or participation
as well. Representative Berkowitz expressed concern that limiting
the language to refer to the private sector may limit the ability
of the public sector's ability to be involved.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that she believes that is already
clarified in the statutes regarding Rural Education Attendance
Areas (REAA).
Number 0747
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE moved that the committee adopt the following
amendment:
Page 2, line 10, following "process.":
Insert "In developing the request for proposals, the
department shall consult with the governing body of each
regional education attendance area in which a rural
school affected by the request for proposals in located."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that Representative Joule's
amendment is in line with existing statute dealing with REAAs.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that although the entire bill is
dealing with REAAs, REAAs haven't been included at the table. He
said, "This puts DOE right there."
CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked if there was any objection to the amendment.
There being no objection, the amendment was adopted.
Number 0794
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT directed attention to the evaluation provision
on page 3. He inquired as to whom the recommendations are made.
He also asked if there is a time line in which this should occur.
MR. ANDERSON explained that the intent [of this provision] is that
this pilot program is strictly for the school construction projects
that are funded in the fiscal year 2001. Therefore, there is an
automatic sunset on this pilot program. The intent of this was
that DOE would review this process and provide the legislature with
a report with regard to recommendations to make it a better
program.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there is the need to be specific on
that point because that provision doesn't specify that DOE has to
report to the legislature nor is a time line specified.
MR. ANDERSON said that if there is to be an amendment, he would
suggest [that the report] be [provided] at the completion of
construction. He reminded the committee that the extended
maintenance program following the turning over of the keys is
important to the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested that [on page 3, line 7,
following "recommendations"] the language "to the legislature"
could be inserted in order to provide clarification. However, she
pointed out that until this pilot program has been in place,
"we're" not going to know what steps to take next. Therefore, she
didn't think they should go into any further detail.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if it would be advantageous to have
periodic reviews in order to track [the progress of the program].
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS pointed out that would revert back to the
maintenance plan on page 2 as the maintenance plan would extend
for a period after the construction is completed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE interjected that an annual review would work.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested that on page 3, line 6, following
"make" insert "annual" and on line 7, following "recommendations"
insert the language "to the legislature".
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS specified that the department is going to
make [recommendations] to the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if this would preclude the
department from making the determination that the program fails and
the department wants to end it.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS reiterated that the department would have
to come before the legislature on this.
Number 1062
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt the
following:
Page 1, line 7,
Delete "and do not address"
Insert "by addressing"
There being no objection, the amendment was adopted.
Number 1094
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS moved to report CSHB 445 [LS1596\I,
Chenoweth/Ford, 4/18/00] as amended out of committee with
individual recommendations. There being no objection, it was so
ordered and CSHB 445(RLS) was reported from the House Rules
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The House Rules Standing Committee meeting was recessed to the call
of the chair at 9:19 a.m. [This meeting was not reconvened.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|