Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/06/1997 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 6, 1997
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Fred Dyson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to changing the rate of a tax or license that supports a
dedication of its proceeds.
- FAILED TO MOVE CSHJR 18(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
OVERVIEW: Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
* HOUSE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to a requirement that a parent, guardian, or
custodian consent before certain minors receive an abortion;
establishing a judicial bypass procedure by which a minor may
petition a court for authorization to consent to an abortion
without consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian; amending the
definition of `abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and 79, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508, and 512.5,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska
Administrative Rules."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act relating to partial-birth abortions."
- BILL POSTPONED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 18
SHORT TITLE: DEDICATED FUNDS: RATE MAY BE CHANGED
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/97 164 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/29/97 164 (H) STA, HES, JUD, FINANCE
02/04/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/04/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 37
SHORT TITLE: PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, KOHRING, VEZEY, MULDER, Ogan,
Dyson, Martin
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 37 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 37 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 37 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
THOMAS W. WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Ivan Ivan
State Capitol, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4589
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 18.
ROD WILSON, Staff Architect
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
Telephone: (907) 465-6962
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
DUGAN PETTY, Director
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110204
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0204
Telephone: (907) 465-2250
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Division of
General Services.
KEITH GERKEN, Architect
Facilities (Juneau)
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110210
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0210
Telephone: (907) 465-5683
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Division of
General Services.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 37.
DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110610
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0610
Telephone: (907) 465-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 37.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 8:00 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Vezey, Ivan and Hodgins. Members
absent were Berkowitz and Elton.
Number 0036
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced for the record that Representative
Fred Dyson was excused from today's meeting.
CHAIR JAMES further announced the meeting was listen only for the
teleconference network today due to time restraints.
Number 0114
CHAIR JAMES announced for the record the arrival of Representatives
Ethan Berkowitz and Kim Elton.
HJR 18 - DEDICATED FUNDS: RATE MAY BE CHANGED
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HJR 18, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to changing the rate
of a tax or license that supports a dedication of its proceeds.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Ivan Ivan, sponsor of the
bill, to present the amendment.
Number 0127
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN explained the intent of the amendment was
to try to meet the effective date of CSHB 1(STA) that passed out of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee this week.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN called on Thomas W. Wright, Legislative
Assistant to Representative Ivan Ivan, to explain the amendment
further.
Number 0181
THOMAS W. WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Ivan
Ivan, stated the amendment was the result of a suggestion made by
James Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law. The
amendment made the resolution retroactive to October 1, 1997 to
coincide with the effective date of CSHB 1(STA). The amendment
ensured there would not be a gap between the raised revenues from
the tobacco tax and the school fund.
Number 0251
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN moved that the amendment be adopted by the
committee. There was no objection.
Number 0294
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN moved that CSHJR 18(STA) move from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
Number 0308
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected. He was opposed to the resolution
and objected on the grounds that a fiscal note was not attached.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Wright if the resolution had a fiscal note?
Number 0346
MR. WRIGHT replied, "Yes." A $3,000 fiscal note was attached, and
according to the Division of Elections, the note could go as high
as $56,000, depending on the number of issues on the ballot.
Number 0434
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey if his objection was
maintained?
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Yes."
CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives James,
Berkowitz and Ivan voted in favor of the motion. Representative
Elton, Hodgins and Vezey voted against the motion. The CSHJR
18(STA) failed to move from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
OVERVIEW: Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was an overview presentation by the Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities.
Number 0458
ROD WILSON, Staff Architect, Office of the Commissioner, Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities, (DOT&PF), explained the
presentation would cover an overview of the state's public
facilities, and the issues affecting their usability. The DOT&PF
asked that the Department of Administration also address the
committee members today regarding the issue of lease space.
MR. WILSON cited the state currently had 1,430 facilities statewide
that were occupied and maintained, excluding the university system.
The number increased to 1,805 when the university system was
included. The total square footage was 7.5 million square feet,
excluding the university system. The number increased to 12
million square feet when the university system was included. The
age of the facilities ranged from new to 50 years old. The oldest
facility was built in 1912. The replacement value in 1995 dollars
exceeded $1.5 billion, excluding the university system. The number
increased to $2.3 billion when the university system was included.
The average value was $200 per square foot. The size of the
facilities ranged from 100 square feet-a cold storage building-to
200,000 square feet-the State Office Building in Juneau. And, the
activities of the facilities ranged from maintenance shops to
airport terminals. The facilities were located throughout the
state and often they were the most significant facility in the
community.
MR. WILSON addressed the issue of deferred maintenance. The
department conservatively estimated that the magnitude was $100
million for executive branch agencies, and as high as $250 million
statewide, including the university system. These figures were
based on a report from 1993. He cited the following areas of
deferred maintenance as examples: roof deterioration problems,
structural problems, electrical problems, and interior finishes.
He announced the DOT&PF had requested through the Office of
Management and Budget, $2 million for funding for the deferred
maintenance of five buildings. These buildings were in dire need
of maintenance. It would be up to the legislature to appropriate
that money.
MR. WILSON further addressed the issues surrounding the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). He explained there were 1,200
buildings that did not comply with the requirements of the act,
according to a 1993 audit. The assessment was $8 million, of
which, the legislature funded in the fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
He explained 50 of the 1,200 facilities had been updated to meet
the act and were met with great approval from the disabled
community. He reminded the committee members that the act required
all building to meet the compliance requirements by July 1, 1995.
Therefore, the state was open to litigation. The state had made a
good effort to comply which was probably why it had not heard too
much from the disabled community. He speculated that the state
would probably hear more from them in the future, however.
Number 1082
CHAIR JAMES stated the figures Mr. Wilson mentioned were startling.
She believed that the state should consider selling the facilities
that it could not maintain. It should consider entering into a
lease arrangement so that the maintenance would be included. She
asked Mr. Wilson to respond.
Number 1114
MR. WILSON replied that issue was lease oriented rather than
ownership oriented. He was more in favor of owning a facility than
of leasing a facility. He suggested that Mr. Dugan Petty,
Department of Administration, could add more to the conversation
surrounding the issue of the cost of leasing.
Number 1148
CHAIR JAMES expressed her concerns of the schools that were part of
the list that Mr. Wilson referred to earlier. She was distressed
because the House State Affairs Standing Committee just turned down
an opportunity to guarantee money for schools by not passing CSHJR
18 (STA) out of the committee. She asked Mr. Wilson what could the
legislators do to convey to the people that this was a serious
issue?
Number 1195
MR. WILSON replied media exposure would be helpful. He would not
like to see exposure surrounding tragedies such as a roof
collapsing, however.
Number 1245
CHAIR JAMES expressed her disgust of this issue. She was pleased
that the camera was here today to help inform the public of the
seriousness of this issue. A $2.3 billion replacement figure was
a big investment for the state.
Number 1284
MR. WILSON clarified that the $2.3 billion replacement figure did
not include the rural schools. The value of the schools was
between $3 billion to $4 billion statewide.
Number 1310
CHAIR JAMES stated in 1993 she knew the numbers of the rural
schools. Most of the schools were in need of code upgrades due to
health, life and safety issues. And, some of the schools had been
on a list for seven years to eight years. The figure was roughly
$120 million and that included the schools in the organized
boroughs that the state had assumed responsibility for their
maintenance costs.
Number 1349
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson how many of these
buildings were actually needed?
Number 1357
MR. WILSON replied the department had not done an assessment of
occupancy in each facility. He estimated that the state could
reduce the square footage about 5 percent. Every facility was
occupied and used. He did not know the efficiency of the
occupancy, however.
Number 1380
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson if the cost he referred to
earlier included passed-through grants that had gone to buildings
that the state funded, but had a quasi ownership to?
Number 1391
MR. WILSON replied, "No." These were facilities that the state
owned out right. The monies that had passed through to other
organizations and municipalities were not included in these
numbers.
Number 1402
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson if there were certain areas
of the state that had more of a deferred maintenance problem?
Number 1407
MR. WILSON replied, "No." The problem was spread across the entire
state. There were facilities that received additional care, but
even that care was not at an adequate level to keep them
maintained.
Number 1420
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson if the department had a
five-year plan? Do you know how many new building were needed?
Number 1440
MR. WILSON replied the department did not have an organized process
as to what new buildings were brought onto line. He explained each
agency campaigned for its own needs. The DOT&PF assisted other
departments to determine the cost and other issues, but it was the
responsibility of each agency to bring the matter forward to the
legislature.
Number 1487
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Wilson who the department
worked with in the ADA community?
Number 1493
MR. WILSON replied the department dealt directly with the
Governor's Council for Employment of People with Disabilities. The
council assisted the department prioritize its list of 1,200
facilities. In addition, the department had contact within local
communities.
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated he would like a copy of the ADA
priority list Mr. Wilson referred to. He asked Mr. Wilson what was
generally needed when there was a failure to comply with the ADA?
He wondered if the deficiency was the lack of a ramp, for example.
Number 1545
MR. WILSON replied entrances to facilities was the top priority.
Nearly every building, he explained, had problems with rest rooms
because they were built tightly. And, some buildings did not have
an elevator so access was limited to the upper floors. He
reiterated, probably the major one issue was entrances including
ramps.
MR. WILSON further stated agencies conducted program remedies for
the ADA requirements. The act actually said the programs and the
services must be available to the disabled individual. Therefore,
provisions were made to have a representative of a service meet an
individual on the ground floor of an office building with no
elevator, for example. That was a suitable, temporary solution.
The department preferred to have a facility be in full compliance
so that the agencies had a wide variety of how they would use the
space within the facility.
Number 1633
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson what percentage of office
space was leased versus owner occupied?
Number 1646
MR. WILSON replied it was a 50/50 split right now.
Number 1650
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson if there was a situation
where the state was a landlord to a third party?
MR. WILSON replied, "Yes, I believe so."
Number 1663
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson if they would be practical
candidates to divest the assets to sell to the occupant?
Number 1670
MR. WILSON responded Mr. Dugan Petty, Department of Administration,
could answer that question better.
Number 1676
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Wilson how long had he worked in this
capacity?
MR. WILSON replied he had been with the department since 1985.
Number 1682
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Wilson if he had a suggestion for a systemic
solution to the deferred maintenance problem?
Number 1717
MR. WILSON explained Mr. Keith Gerken, Department of
Administration, would address her concerns later in the overview.
The department did have some thoughts surrounding that issue. It
could identify the problems, but it did not have a solution. The
solutions, he believed, would come from the Alaska State
Legislature because they were primarily budget issues.
Number 1749
CHAIR JAMES stated one solution was to have every state agency that
occupied a state owned building pay the rent. She believed, if
that was a requirement, an agency would not occupy as much space.
Number 1766
MR. WILSON replied he also believed there would be a reduction.
Number 1770
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked Mr. Wilson if there was a dramatic
difference between leased space and state owned space in deferred
maintenance? Was there a market incentive that meant the leased
space would be better maintained to meet the requirements of the
ADA, for example?
Number 1812
MR. WILSON replied he could only address that question from the
leased space he worked at-3132 Channel Drive, Juneau, Alaska. He
explained, the care and the maintenance that went into the building
was much superior than what the state could put into in a
comparable building. It was also ADA accessible. It was a newer
building so it would be easier to modify for the ADA requirements
compared to an older building, however.
Number 1850
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Wilson if the state would be better
off not buying old buildings to house state functions or state
people than constructing new buildings, for example?
Number 1870
MR. WILSON stated in some cases he believed it would be more
advantageous to the state to level an old building and either re-
build it or find space else where. The state had some buildings
that were clearly not cost effective to keep them open. There was
no other alternative at this point in time, however.
Number 1893
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Wilson if the state leased any
facility from the Permanent Fund Corporation?
Number 1905
MR. WILSON replied he had no idea. He asked the committee members
to hold all lease questions for Mr. Dugan Petty, Department of
Administration.
Number 1915
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY announced that the state of Alaska led the
nation in ADA compliance. It was a huge nationwide problem, and
Alaska was ahead of the rest. And, the legislature was remiss by
not addressing the state's Congressional delegation with a
resolution asking that the goals be moved forward so that there
were no frivolous lawsuits. He further suggested changes were
needed in the ADA. He cited a building that was built in 1912
could not be economically renovated to meet ADA compliance. There
were other ways, he declared, of allowing for handicap access, but
they were not allowed by the ADA. He cited a common meeting place,
as an example. Furthermore, he agreed it was cheaper to level a
building and build a new one than it was to upgrade the codes. In
addition, the legislature made the codes by law. He had never seen
an effort to address the law to recognize the inherent value in the
infrastructure that already existed. Maybe, it was not necessary
to bring every building up to the same standard.
Number 2032
MR. WILSON stated that was one of the things that he tried to
address to Representative Berkowitz. There was a program
alternative. A community could create a building that was totally
ADA accessible that contained 15 meeting rooms for various
agencies, for example. He reiterated the act said that the
"programs and services" needed to be accessible. The problem,
however, was diffusing the staff within an agency. It would create
supervisory problems. He believed this program would word best in
the rural communities. This option was not being pursued by the
department, however, because there was no way it could pull the
agencies into a single unit.
Number 2092
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated Mr. Wilson was just addressing the
current ADA. He believed changes were needed to the act to
encourage and make more options available. Moreover, he cited in
1974 the state of Alaska adopted the building code that made every
facility in the state built prior to 1974 obsolete. And, every
three years there were upgrades. The requirements in the building
code were not designed for arctic conditions, and the state was
being straddled with the expenses. He did not see how the state
could even afford to have public buildings much longer. The
operating costs of mandatory air changes in the arctic environment,
for example, would create prohibitive operating costs.
Number 2131
MR. WILSON replied he had testified on standards for air quality in
the past. He was sympathetic to what Representative Vezey stated.
The air quality changes were not only difficult to do in the
arctic, but energy consumption also increased dramatically. The
codes that Representative Vezey referred to were adopted through
the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Labor, not
the DOT&PF. The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
was only responsible for the ADA.
Number 2161
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the codes he referred to were actually
adopted by the legislature. The legislature recently gave the
agencies the authority to adopt the electrical code.
MR. WILSON stated the Department of Public Safety and the
Department of Labor were the two agencies that typically came to
the legislature with recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated, "quite frankly, the Department of
Labor administers most of them, and they know the least about it of
anybody in the state." There had not been an engine pushing from
the engineering or the architectural communities to address the
Alaskan modifications to the building code.
Number 2187
MR. WILSON stated a group of design professionals pushed for some
time for changes to the plumbing code. The plumbing code still
worked off the 1974 requirements that called for cast iron piping
in commercial buildings.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that was changed last year. The
Department of Labor fought against plastic piping for 12 years.
MR. WILSON said that was a classic example of expenses that did not
need to be incurred.
Number 2213
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented the studies he had read indicated
that maintenance and renovation were far cheaper than new
construction because of reduced overhead.
Number 2250
MR. WILSON stated he agreed 100 percent with Representative Vezey.
It was more cost effective to maintain a building than it was to
let a building go un-maintained for a number of years then rebuild
it.
Number 2259
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated mechanical systems could not be put
together in piecemeal. At times, they had to be replaced. Under
the code, however, sometimes it was necessary to bring the entire
building up to code. That was when the economics was lost.
Number 2271
MR. WILSON replied under most of the maintenance activities he did
not believe that was the case because of the 25 percent of the
building value provision.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he brought this issue up to acknowledge
that the legislature as a body was responsible for adopting a lot
of the codes, and there was a lack of interest in this subject. He
had seen bills go through the body when he was the only person that
knew what was being voted on. "But, we don't let that slow us
down."
Number 2319
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated with ADA funds there was a lot of
money being spent putting in gold plated bathrooms and not enough
money being spent throwing down plywood ramps. He asked Mr. Wilson
what was being done to make better wheelchairs? Individuals were
only looking at engineering solutions.
Number 2341
MR. WILSON stated that was one of the original questions asked of
the federal government in 1990. The response from the federal
government was that it was more concerned about making facilities
accessible than dictating how to build a better wheelchair. He was
not convinced, however, that somebody out there could not build a
wheelchair to climb a set of stairs. How accessible would that
wheelchair be? he wondered. It became a question of affordability.
Number 2395
DUGAN PETTY, Director, Division of General Services, Department of
Administration, was the first person to present an overview of the
Division of General Services. He explained the department allotted
space in state buildings, acquired and managed leased office space.
He cited the state had 1.6 million square feet of office space
under lease. The three major office locations were-Anchorage,
Fairbanks and Juneau. He cited 770,000 square feet of office space
in Anchorage and 41 leases. That was the largest. The average
cost was $1.56 per square foot. He cited 135,676 square feet of
office space in Fairbanks and 31 leases. The average cost was
$1.45 per square foot. He cited 397,00 square feet of office space
in Juneau and 68 leases. The average cost was $1.89 per square
foot.
TAPE 97-8, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. PETTY further explained the department's ADA requirements were
more stringent in its lease acquisitions. The department must
comply with Title 2 of the act and treat it as if the state owned
it. Moreover, the department worked with a space standard. It
used an invitation to bid formula to acquire office space that took
into consideration the monthly cost. It did not consider other
costs such as moving. An average lease was five years with a
renewable option. The department discovered, however, that it was
moving every five years due to better prices from competition.
But, when the cost of moving was factored in, it was actually
costing the state more money. Therefore, the formula was modified
to factor in the other expenses.
MR. PETTY explained lease acquisitions were relatively long-six
months. The department was required under AS Sec. 36.30.080,
"Leases," to bring a lease replacement to the legislature if the
value exceeded $2,500,000, for approval. In addition, other issues
surrounding leasing involved moving costs for agencies, for
example. An office space today required heating and electrical
sophistication to meet technology. The ADA requirements also
remained an issue. When the state renewed a lease it required from
the leaser to meet the needs of Title 2 of the act. That was not
a problem, it were the longer leases that had not moved towards
compliance that were a problem. In addition, space was also an
issue for agencies when their programs expanded.
Number 0377
MR. PETTY further explained in Anchorage it was a renters market.
In Juneau the prices were higher due to less competition. For the
last ten years, funding had been an issue because the department
had received less money than it requested. The biggest issue now
facing the department was the renewal of the Department of Natural
Resources building in Anchorage. The department was also
considering buying the National Bank of Alaska building in
Anchorage. That was contingent on the approval of the legislature,
however.
Number 0536
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty what the average square foot
cost was in the rural areas? He mentioned earlier the average
square foot cost in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau.
Number 0553
MR. PETTY replied he did not have that figure with him now. It was
an odd number. The range was dramatic. He explained it depended
on the location. In Kenai the range was $1 to $1.35. Whereas, in
Barrow, the department would be happy if the cost was $6.
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty what the restraints and
requirements were before the state invested in lease-hold
improvements? And, how much of the budget would that be?
Number 0600
MR. PETTY replied tenant improvements were generally rolled into
the acquisition cost and amortized over the life of the lease. He
cited the cost for office space was $10 to $15 per square foot in
Anchorage. There was freezer space in the epidemiology department
in Anchorage, for example, that was fairly expensive. There was a
lab lease in Juneau that required special vent hoods that was also
fairly expensive.
Number 0684
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty if the trend in lease-space
acquisition had grown? Does the state own more buildings than what
was being leased 10 years ago, for example?
Number 0695
MR. PETTY replied the state had not seen an addition to the
inventory in terms of big buildings or spaces. It had seen some
incremental growth then decline. In the late 1970's and 1980's
there were new programs that defaulted to existing space because
the state was not buying buildings nor building them. The state
had only built very specialized building, such as, the crime lab in
Anchorage. The lease-space portfolio had not changed either over
the last ten years.
Number 0749
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty if there were any
constraints placed on departments or divisions when they requested
lease space?
Number 0759
MR. PETTY replied the department worked with them and held them
accountable to the space standards formula. If specialized needs
were necessary, the department looked to them to pay for that.
Once it was part of the leasing budget, there was not a lot of
incentive for agencies to look to save space, however.
Number 0826
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty if the department had a
priority basi
s? And, was it suggested to the agencies when they requested
space?
Number 0842
MR. PETTY replied the department did that on a continual basis.
The department was obligated to get what the agencies needed in
terms of space to get their job done. It had to be in accordance
with the space standard formula, and the price needed to be
competitive.
Number 0886
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Petty how the department evaluated
the value of leasing versus owning to the state?
Number 0900
MR. PETTY replied the department looked at that on a situational
basis. He stated leasing on a long-term basis was a costly
proposition because the maintenance cost was 50 cents to 60 cents
per square foot. It also paid for profit, overhead, principle on
interest, and taxes to the leaser. Therefore, the state was not
getting any thing in return for its investment in a lease
situation.
Number 1051
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated testimony indicated the state was $500
million behind in its deferred maintenance responsibilities. The
state, therefore, was not putting 50 cents per square foot into
building maintenance.
Number 1069
MR. PETTY replied he did not disagree with Representative Vezey.
If the state did the job it should do with maintenance, in the
long-run it would be cheaper to own and preserve its public
facilities.
Number 1086
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the leased space better served the
users because it was better maintained.
Number 1094
MR. PETTY replied it was important to look at each situation.
There were many leasers that did a good job maintaining the space.
There were problems too.
Number 1138
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Petty if he knew if the state
leased space from the Permanent Fund Corporation?
Number 1148
MR. PETTY replied the state did not lease directly from the
Permanent Fund Corporation. He understood the corporation was
interested in two buildings-the Goldbelt Building in Juneau and the
Frontier Building in Anchorage-that the state currently leased.
Number 1175
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Petty if he saw any problems or
benefits from leasing from the Permanent Fund Corporation?
Number 1181
MR. PETTY replied the department would not have any difficulty if
the corporation was in that business.
Number 1310
KEITH GERKEN, Architect, Facilities (Juneau), Division of General
Services, Department of Administration, was the next person to
present an overview of the Division of General Services. There
were very few people shocked to find out that the state was not
doing a good job maintaining its facilities. He explained a group
of 45 to 50 people in November of 1996 gathered to agree/disagree
with a list of 20 indicators presented. They agreed with all 20
and added 20 more. The ten most important were the following: a
$34 million shortfall in the annual maintenance funding to prevent
additional deferred maintenance, a $250 million deferred
maintenance backlog, no overall policy for maintenance and
operation of buildings, no statewide automated maintenance
management system, a lack of a statewide capital improvement
program prioritization process, a lack of criteria for an economic
model for decision making, no segregation of operating budget
funding, a lack of funding to provide efficient space planning, no
point of responsibility established for the condition of state
facilities, and lastly, an inability to respond to changing federal
facility requirements.
MR. GERKEN further stated that a group was established several
years ago to address solutions to the issue. The group concluded
the following: services should be delivered in a customer driven
organization, state agencies should be accountable for their space,
space should be allocated equitably, the state should be
accountable for adequate future maintenance and repair, the state
should not ignore its public trust to provide stewardship of its
assets, the state should be innovative in applying technological
solutions and human resources, the state should have a funding
mechanism to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog, the state
should benchmark its performance, and the state should require a
contractual agreement between the customers and the service
providers.
Number 1950
MR. GERKEN further stated the short-term objectives were
incremental so that they would not impact the programs within the
agencies. There were five pilot projects that the department was
working on now. He cited the following: the Nome Pilot Project,
expanding the automated management system, changing accounting
procedures to see what was really spent on facility maintenance and
replacement, creating a rental methodology, and working together
for more focus.
Number 2062
CHAIR JAMES stated some of the idea Mr. Gerken just mentioned had
been around for a long time. She asked for written information
that he could provide to the committee members for further
analysis.
Number 2169
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented the one question that Mr. Gerken did
not address was, "Why couldn't the legislature get public support
to bring the building up to a level that met their requirements? "
That was the bottom line.
Number 2258
CHAIR JAMES gave notice of reconsideration on her vote on CSHJR
18(STA). The bill was scheduled to be heard in the House State
Affairs Standing Committee again on Tuesday, February 11, 1997.
HB 37 - PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 37, "An Act relating to a requirement
that a parent, guardian, or custodian consent before certain minors
receive an abortion; establishing a judicial bypass procedure by
which a minor may petition a court for authorization to consent to
an abortion without consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian;
amending the definition of `abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and
79, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508,
and 512.5, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska
Administrative Rules."
Number 2422
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, explained he
introduced HB 37 to enforce the current law that required parental
consent for a minor's abortion-AS Sec. 18.16.010, "Abortions." A
parental consent law had been on the books since 1970. In 1976 it
was declared unconstitutional by an attorney general without the
provision of a judicial by-pass. House Bill 37 gave that by-pass.
TAPE 97-9, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY further stated parental consent was pretty
clear and simple. Parents had to give permission for a school
administrator or a doctor to give their child an aspirin, for
example. It was quite a shock to many Alaskans that their
daughters could receive an abortion without consent. In other
states, parental involvement laws had been on the books and had
made a positive impact on reducing the number of abortions and
teenage pregnancies. He cited in Minnesota pregnancy rates fell by
20 percent, teenage abortions fell by 27 percent, and teenage
birthrates fell by 12.5 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred the committee members to Section 1,
"Purpose; Findings," page 2, and read, "(3) the capacity to become
pregnant and the capacity for mature judgment concerning the wisdom
of an abortion are not necessarily related;" He believed this was
true and that teenagers stood to benefit from the support and
counsel from the parents during one of the most stressful times of
their lives. He was aware that not all families were supportive
and that some were abusive. That was the nature of the judicial
by-pass. Legislators should not focus completely on abusive and
dysfunctional families when making public policies because most
families were supportive of their children in Alaska. He urged the
members to give this bill consideration and to pass it from the
committee. He called it a common sense bill. It was a bill that
"most Alaskans can put in their hip pocket and understand and agree
with. In fact, most do. They think that people don't have the
right to come in to their family and cause their children to do
things that they would disagree with." Most surgical techniques
were very safe, but there were risks involved. People still died
from legal abortions. Doctors made mistakes. The parents needed
to be involved to relate medical history so that the procedure, if
chosen, would go in the most smooth and beneficial way possible.
He again asked for the support of the committee members.
Number 0250
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly what his
position was on abortion?
Number 0271
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied, "I am pro-life."
Number 0276
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly if there were
any circumstances that he would find abortion to be acceptable?
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied, "To protect the life of the mother."
Not the emotional well-being of the mother, he explained, but to
protect her life.
Number 0297
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly if HB 37 was
part of a wider strategy regarding abortion?
Number 0304
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied the strategy of HB 37 was to provide
parental notification so that parents would know when surgical
procedures were being performed on their children. Just like when
they were required to be informed when their children were given an
aspirin, for example.
Number 0327
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly if there were
any companion bills to HB 37?
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied, "I am not offering any companion
bills."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly if he would
offer any companion bills to HB 37 in the future?
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied he would offer future bills on
abortion as he saw fit.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly what sort of
bills would he offer?
CHAIR JAMES announced the questions of Representative Berkowitz
were out of context to HB 37. She asked him to refrain from those
questions.
Number 0371
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, in his opinion, if HB 37 was the
first salvo in an attack on abortion rights....
Number 0383
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected. The rules of debate were clear, he
said. "What may come before this committee at a future date was
not what we were doing."
Number 0399
CHAIR JAMES stated Representative Berkowitz was entitled to his
opinion, but the issue on the table was HB 37, and any future bills
were not part of the discussion. She asked him to rephrase his
question.
Number 0430
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated he may have misspoken earlier. He was
a co-sponsor of HB 65.
Number 0464
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly to walk him
through the process that he saw as a result of HB 37. A young
woman found herself pregnant, then what would happen?
Number 0479
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied in the best situation she would talk
to her parents about it and then it would become a family decision.
If she decided for whatever reason that she could not talk to her
parents about it, there was a provision that allowed her to go to
a judicial by-pass. The judge would then decided if there was a
level of maturity adequate enough to make a decision without
parental consent, or if there was abuse involved.
Number 0541
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated Representative Kelly presumed that
the young woman would immediately head to the court house.
Number 0548
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he could not speak on every case. That
would be the public policy. The option would be available to go to
the courts if they chose not to go to their parents. It would be
up to a judge if they "would get the relief that they sought."
Number 0578
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly how long was
the time frame for this decision?
Number 0585
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied five days.
Number 0597
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Kelly if five days was the
decision making time allowed?
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied it was decision making time for the
courts.
Number 0610
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly if he knew how
many people in the state would be affected by HB 37?
Number 0622
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied the information was in the fiscal
note.
Number 0635
CHAIR JAMES explained there was a proposed committee substitute
that needed to be adopted. She asked for a motion.
Number 0647
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that the committee adopt the proposed
committee substitute, 0-LS0227/E, Lauterbach, dated 1/21/97.
Number 0667
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. A roll call vote was taken.
Representatives James, Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey voted in favor of
the motion. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton voted against the
motion. The committee substitute was adopted.
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Kelly if the fiscal note would
change with the committee substitute?
Number 0714
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied he had a committee substitute from the
Senate bill that was identical to the adopted committee substitute.
The fiscal note addressed 112 people. It contained the most
current information.
Number 0782
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly, of the 112
people in the fiscal note, how many came from "unhealthy" families?
Number 0797
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied the fiscal note was an estimate of the
future from the Administration. He assumed it would be a mixture
of children from abusive homes and children that were adequately
mature to make their own decision.
Number 0819
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly how many of the
112....
CHAIR JAMES stated that was a question that did not have an answer.
The fiscal note was a calculation based on existing numbers. She
did not see how Representative Kelly could answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied, "I beg to differ."
CHAIR JAMES reiterated it did not have an answer. Please try
another question.
Number 0855
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly, of the 112
people in the fiscal note, how many were in areas beyond the reach
of a court?
Number 0866
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that question was a concern of Dr.
Nakamura, Department of Health and Public Services, who would
testify later. There was not a court in every town or village in
the state. And, there was a great distance for people to travel to
get permission. However, there were no facilities to perform an
abortion in most of those places either. They would have to travel
to a town with a court in it anyway. That was the reason for a
five day waiting period.
Number 0928
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Representative Kelly if he had reviewed
the American Medical Association's (AMA) position on informed
consent laws? Please comment on why its position that informed
consent might increase the health risk to teenagers might be wrong.
Number 0962
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied he disagreed that it might cause an
increased health risk to teenagers because absent of parental
involvement there was limited access to medical history. Moreover,
he agreed that this was a deeply private decision. A decision that
a family needed to make. That was the only part of the opposing
rhetoric that he agreed with. He wanted to be involved when his
child had a case of strep throat. He wanted to go the doctors
office to answer the questions that needed to be answered. Most
teenagers could not answer those questions about themselves. He
believed it was more dangerous to undergo surgery without that type
of information.
Number 1046
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he understood what Representative Kelly
said, but that was not what the AMA believed. He stated he was not
concerned about the children in Representative Kelly's family
because it was an intricate unit. However, there were a lot of
dysfunction families. Those were the ones that he was concerned
about. In fact, some of the family members could be at fault in
the pregnancy. He was not comfortable with an approach that said
dysfunctional families had to be involved in this type of decision.
Number 1105
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that was the heart of HB 37-the
judicial by-pass. The original statute since 1970 called for
parental consent. The courts recognized that there were
dysfunction families so some relief was needed. The bill perfectly
addressed the concerns of Representative Elton.
Number 1140
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained one judge in middle America denied
a judicial order for an abortion due to immaturity because the
minor did not take the issue to her family. There were no
standards that the court system applied, he declared.
Number 1189
CHAIR JAMES commented it made her feel good that someone else did
not have faith in the courts.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied only sometimes. It depended on the
issue.
Number 1201
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that judges were human. They would
make mistakes. More importantly, "Children are human, and they're
going to make a lot more mistakes." He wanted the parents or the
courts to be involved so that they would make fewer mistakes and
better decisions. The mistakes were life threatening or could
cause sterility and horrible depression, for example. The bill did
not address the issue of stupid judges and kids.
Number 1242
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that dumb decision were made and in the
past it forced them into doing something that was illegal which
increased the health risk. Moreover, he stated he found Section 1,
"Purpose; Finding," incongruous. The findings indicated that
immature minors lacked the ability to make informed decisions. He
wondered if this also meant that they had the ability to be a good
parent.
Number 1284
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied civilization at large would say that
children lacked the ability to make informed choices. He cited he
was constantly signing consent forms for his children for field
trips, for example. He did not care if his child went on a field
trip. There was the issue of liability, however. The schools were
terribly concerned about a field trip because they believed a child
could not make an informed choice so it was necessary to cover
themselves legally. But, when it came to an abortion, he asked,
"Why was that outside the umbrella?"
Number 1363
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Representative Kelly, if they lacked
that capacity, was he comfortable with their capacity to be a good
parent?
Number 1373
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that was when the family was needed.
Maybe the child was not capable of being a great parent, but the
family would gather around and help raise that child. That would
not happen in every situation. There were dysfunctional families.
Public policy should not be made, however, on the basis of a
minority of dysfunctional families. The judicial by-pass would
allow for a forum to go around those families.
Number 1413
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated Representative Kelly was concerned
about a juvenile's immaturity in this forum. Whereas, in other
forums he was concerned about a juvenile's waiver. He asked
Representative Kelly to reconcile those two differences.
Number 1429
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied he would be happy to answer that
question, but he was asking about bills that were not before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated he was asking about a juvenile's
maturity.
Number 1437
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Berkowitz to ask specific
questions about HB 37.
CHAIR JAMES stated the House State Affairs Standing Committee just
passed a tobacco tax bill out of committee. The bill did not trust
children to have the ability to make decisions. She wondered, "If
it's okay for one thing, is it okay for another?" There were
fringe elements involved so let's talk about the issue before us
and not deviate.
Number 1526
DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director, Division of Public Health, Department
of Health and Social Services, commented there appeared to be room
for consensus. We all agreed that a concerned parent should be
involved. Fortunately, that was true in the majority of the cases.
Studies showed that about 61 percent of young women involved their
parents. Another 20 percent involved a responsible adult such as
a clergyman. Unfortunately, of the 40 percent who did not obtain
parental consent, one-third lived in an abusive home. He was
concerned that the bill would put these young women into greater
risk of harm-physically and/or psychologically. The remaining
option would be to obtain an illegal abortion. He cited a young
woman in Alaska today would be on life support and in the hospital
for at least one year because the options did not seem available to
her. He did not want to force a young woman into this situation.
It was a real issue. Moreover,
DR. NAKAMURA further stated the judicial by-pass made sense. It
gave an option. However, the process was not friendly, especially
for minors. And, he wondered if it would even be available to
those in the rural areas. He was concerned that the young woman
would wait until the choices were few and the risks went up. He
was also concerned about the ability to maintain confidentiality.
He explained he served as a pediatrician in Bethel. He had worked
in the rural communities. He knew it would be virtually impossible
to maintain a level of confidentiality.
Number 1809
CHAIR JAMES stated that Dr. Nakamura indicated that even now there
were illegal abortions. House Bill 37 would not change that. A
judicial by-pass would not have made a difference.
Number 1833
DR. NAKAMURA replied, yes, an individual could access the judicial
system if it really was available.
Number 1858
CHAIR JAMES explained she raised 3 of her own children and 19
foster children. From her experience with her foster children, she
discovered the best success was to build a new relationship with
the parents. The biological connection was extremely important.
Moreover, a situation such as a pregnant teenager, pulled the
family together. She asked Dr. Nakamura if he saw the value of
encouraging the children to communicate with their parents-not in
cases of abuse-but in cases of disciplinary issues, for example?
Number 1941
DR. NAKAMURA replied there were situations where there would be
positive gains. That would be on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully,
the system would always work with parents no matter how un-
supportive they might be to try and turn the situation around.
However, to put a child into that relationship without support
could compromise and endanger the child. Moreover, a crisis
situation was very volatile, and to try to bring about that type of
a relationship was extremely difficult.
Number 2011
CHAIR JAMES explained she knew of a situation where a child was too
embarrassed and more concerned about the effects on the parents to
talk to them. She asked Dr. Nakamura, if one child was saved, and
three were lost, what was the balance?
Number 2046
DR. NAKAMURA replied decisions were made based on the greatest
gain. Fortunately, the majority of the children already had this
relationship with their parents-a law was not needed to bring this
about. And, those that did not would be hurt. There were 11,000
deliveries per year in Alaska and roughly 4.5 percent were from
children under 17. Nationally, 40 percent of young woman had an
abortion.
Number 2108
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated there was an extended family system in
the rural communities to protect foster children. He cited the
Indian Child Welfare Act was established so that the village
council could represent some of the children being discussed today
to ensure their safety. The rural communities were not as helpless
as some people might think. He expressed his support of HB 37 as
a result of his own upbringing. He believed that families should
take care of themselves and their children.
Number 2197
DR. NAKAMURA replied there was a wonderful extended family in the
rural communities. It was not uncommon to find a child being
raised by a cousin or an aunt. The mandate in the bill, however,
would not allow the extended family members to work with the child.
The legal parent would be responsible. This would aggregate any
sense of confidentiality because the real parent would need to be
identified.
Number 2229
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he disagreed with Dr. Nakamura. If the
extended family was not involved, then the village community would
provide legal representation wherever possible. That was the basic
foundation of the village tribal government's responsibility. He
saw HB 37 as an option to parents.
Number 2267
CHAIR JAMES asked Dr. Nakamura if he was concerned about the
children contacting parents when it might not be a good idea? And,
if he was concerned about the judicial by-pass being intimidating
to a child in comparison to going to an abortion clinic for
support? She did not see that the bill would force a child to go
to his parents unnecessarily because of the judicial by-pass. It
was another choice for the child.
Number 2338
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied Representative James was exactly
correct. Others, such as, school counsellors in the past had
encouraged children to seek an abortion without notifying the
parents. Those counsellors would still be available. "What brings
the children to the court, will probably be the same thing that
brings them to the abortion clinic. And, that is a counsellor, a
teacher, a school nurse or what not." He did not think a child
would go through this process alone.
TAPE 97-9, SIDE B
Number 0001
DR. NAKAMURA commented that a normal delivery was more dangerous
than an early abortion.
Number 0026
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained he had a unreasonable fear of
doctors and attorneys. "This is an incredible threshold question
for a very young person to have to choose-do I tell a family member
that might hit me, or do I go to an attorney or put myself in the
hands of attorneys that I don't know and don't know anything
about?" He asked Dr. Nakamura if he was concerned of more
instances of young women in the hospital due to illegal abortions
as a result of parental consent?
Number 0080
DR. NAKAMURA replied, "That's correct."
Number 0082
CHAIR JAMES stated she believed there might be some families healed
over this piece of legislation. That was based on her practical
experience as a foster parent.
Number 0100
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Dr. Nakamura if he knew how many
young woman died from an illegal abortion in Alaska last year?
Number 0106
DR. NAKAMURA replied, "None."
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0137
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 10:30 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|