02/05/1998 08:04 AM House STA

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

txt

HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE February 5, 1998 8:04 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Ivan Ivan, Vice Chairman Representative Ethan Berkowitz Representative Fred Dyson Representative Kim Elton Representative Mark Hodgins Representative Al Vezey MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR * HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 24 "Relating to the use of prototype designs in public school construction projects." - MOVED CSHCR 24(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE BILL 105(FIN) am "An Act relating to legislative and executive branch ethics; relating to campaign finances for candidates for state office; relating to the conduct and regulation of lobbyists with respect to public officials; relating to the filing of disclosures by certain state employees and officials; making a conforming amendment to the definition of `public official' for employment security statutes; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD * HOUSE BILL NO. 312 "An Act relating to the Public Facilities Financing Corporation; authorizing an advisory vote on whether the legislature should appropriate $1,500,000,000 from the constitutional budget reserve fund to capitalize the build Alaska fund; and providing for an effective date." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD * HOUSE BILL 313 "An Act relating to preventive maintenance programs required for certain state grants; and providing for an effective date." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD * HOUSE BILL 315 "An Act relating to operating appropriations for annual maintenance and repair and periodic renewal and replacement of public buildings and facilities; and providing for an effective date." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HCR 24 SHORT TITLE: PROTOTYPE SCHOOL DESIGN SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF DMT Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/12/98 2019 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)

01/12/98 2019 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 02/05/98 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: SB 105 SHORT TITLE: PROTOTYPE SCHOOL DESIGN SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF DMT Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 02/25/97 494 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/25/97 494 (S) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 03/11/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/11/97 (S) MINUTE(STA) 03/13/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/13/97 (S) MINUTE(STA) 03/18/97 (S) MINUTE(STA) 03/25/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211 03/25/97 (S) MINUTE(STA) 03/26/97 873 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE 03/26/97 873 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, WARD 03/26/97 873 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB (ADM) 03/26/97 873 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB (LAA) 03/26/97 873 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (ADM) 04/10/97 (S) FIN AT 5:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532 04/10/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 04/10/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 04/15/97 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 04/15/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 04/16/97 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 04/16/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 04/16/97 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 04/16/97 1163 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 5NR NEW TITLE 04/16/97 1163 (S) DP: PEARCE; DP IF AM: PHILLIPS 04/16/97 1163 (S) NR: SHARP, PARNELL, ADAMS, TORGERSON, 04/16/97 1163 (S) DONLEY 04/16/97 1163 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (LAA) 04/16/97 1163 (S) ZERO FNS TO CS (LABOR, LAW) 04/16/97 1163 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (LAA) 04/18/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 04/18/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 04/18/97 1276 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1NR 4/18/97 04/18/97 1279 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 04/18/97 1279 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 04/18/97 1280 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED AND WITHDRAWN 04/18/97 1281 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y4 N13 E3 04/18/97 1282 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y4 N13 E3 04/18/97 1283 (S) AMENDMENTS 4, 5 NOT OFFERED 04/18/97 1283 (S) AM NO 6 ADOPTED Y12 N5 E3 04/18/97 1285 (S) AM NO 7 FAILED Y7 N10 E3 04/18/97 1286 (S) AM NO 8 FAILED Y5 N12 E3 04/18/97 1287 (S) AM NO 9 ADOPTED Y17 N- E3 04/18/97 1291 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 04/18/97 1291 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 105(FIN) AM 04/18/97 1292 (S) PASSED Y15 N2 E3 04/18/97 1292 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 04/18/97 1292 (S) LINCOLN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 04/21/97 1334 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 04/21/97 1335 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 10 UNAN CONSENT 04/21/97 1335 (S) AM NO 10 ADOPTED Y14 N5 E1 04/21/97 1336 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 04/21/97 1337 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N2 E1 04/21/97 1337 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 04/21/97 1370 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/22/97 1232 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/22/97 1233 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 02/05/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER DENNIS DEWITT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Eldon Mulder Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 501 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2647 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 24. GARY WILKEN, Senator Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 510 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3709 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 24. DOUG GREEN, Architect American Institute of Architects and Alaska Professional Design Council 901 West Twenty-ninth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: (907) 563-8474 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information for HCR 24. MIKE MORGAN, Facilities Manager Teaching and Learning Support Department of Education 801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-1858 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information for HCR 24. LEN MACKLER, Director Physical Plant Department Fairbanks North Star Borough School District 520 Fifth Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 452-4461 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 24. BENJAMIN BROWN, Administrative Assistant to Senator Tim Kelly Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 101 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3822 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Kelly, sponsor of SB 105. NEIL SLOTNICK, Assistant Attorney General Commercial Section Department of Law P.O. Box 1103000 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 105. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-10, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Dyson, Elton, and Hodgins. Representatives Ivan, Berkowitz and Vezey joined the meeting at 9:05 a.m. and 9:07 a.m. respectively. HCR 24 - PROTOTYPE SCHOOL DESIGN Number 0058 CHAIR JAMES announced the first item of business was HCR 24, "Relating to the use of prototype designs in public school construction projects." Chair James said she intended to move HCR 24 out of committee today due to the March 1, 1998 deadline. Number 0064 DENNIS DEWITT, Legislative Assistant, to Representative Mulder, Alaska State Legislature, testified on behalf of Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-chairman of the Deferred Maintenance Task Force. Mr. DeWitt said the Deferred Maintenance Task Force reviewed many schools as they traveled through the state during the fall [1997]. One of the issues that was brought before the task force was the using of prototypical designs for schools. The task force recommended consideration be given to use prototypical schools for several reasons. One was the potential savings in terms of design and construction. Secondly, it was important to reduce long-term maintenance costs. Mr. DeWitt indicated there was a strong feeling that the use of prototypical designs would help do that. Number 0116 MR. DEWITT said prototypical designs were currently being used in several school districts. He noted the task force was shown prototypical schools when they visited Fairbanks and Anchorage. Number 127 MR. DEWITT pointed out the proposed committee substitute incorporates many of the concerns and issues that have been raised: "Page 1, line 6, replaces 'critical' with 'crucial'. "Page 1, lines 15 and 16, corrects the names of the municipalities to their full and proper names. "Page 2, lines 2 through 7, were added at the suggestion of representatives from the Fairbanks North Star Borough [FNSB] School District. It talks about the things that they have learned and the advantages they have gained from the use of prototypical schools in terms of the reduction and maintenance costs and improvements in the maintenance programs through the use of standardized building components, systems and products. They have experienced fewer problems during the first year when they use a prototype school. "What Fairbanks shared with the task force was, once you have schools that have common systems, training your maintenance crews on a common system is much less expensive and much more effective than having to train them on multiple types of systems. The typical bugs that were anticipated in new construction are much reduced through the use of prototypical schools. As the first one is developed and used many of the bugs are worked out. "Fairbanks, after the first year of use, interviewed faculty, administration, parents and others regarding any problems. That helped evolve the prototypical design - they are working out bugs as they go. Since they have built the building before, they know where the bugs are going to be and they design around them. "Page 2, lines 8 through 10, was added to reflect the concern that these prototypical designs accurately reflect the Alaska environment. This is not southern California or New Mexico where we had some facilities designed and put up in an Arctic region. "Page 2, line 15, the focus was for schools grades K-6, not schools across the board. "Page 2, lines 15 through 18, adds consultation with architects, engineers, and professional organizations familiar with Alaskan climactic conditions and its effects on school design and construction. This was at request by a number of the professional designers and architects and engineers who indicated that it would be helpful. The task force agreed to have them participate in the designs and discussions. "Page 2. line 20, directs the Department of Education to consult with the bond reimbursement and grant review committee. "The task force suggested, as this process moves on, there be consultation with the bond reimbursement and grant review committee in developing incentives for schools to use the prototypical designs. That will be forthcoming as a result of activities around this resolution. "Page 2, lines 24 through 27, adds a resolve to request that the Department of Education identify prototype components when a prototypical design might not be appropriate. "The task force recommended adding a resolve acknowledging that there are some instances where prototypical designs may not be appropriate. But they should be defined and identified components that can be used again to gather the advantages of prototypical design and experience in designing schools." Number 0258 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON identified requirements that would place a burden upon the Department of Education. He said the obvious is the cost of working with design professionals and developing prototypical school designs. The resolution states what they need to do, he asked how are they going to pay for it. Number 0267 MR. DEWITT replied the cost is undetermined and stressed the task force would like to move HCR 24 quickly in order to begin the process this year. Mr. DeWitt said, "We'd like them to tell us what they're going to need in terms of legislation, which in my mind would also mean funding, by March 1." Number 0278 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON addressed the requirements for developing prototypical school designs in consultation with design professionals. He said he believed one of the concerns some people may have is that HCR 24 is a usurpation of local decision-making. Representative Elton asked, "Why isn't there something in the resolution that says the department also needs to work with districts that have prototypical school designs, and with districts that may or may not want them, as they come up with design standards." Number 0289 MR. DEWITT replied there probably is no reason. He said the districts that have prototypical schools were not specifically included in the resolution. He said, "It has been the expectation that they would be involved in the process. They have thus far been involved in the process and very willing participants." Number 0303 MR. DEWITT responded to Representative Elton's question. He said, he did not see that there would be a particular problem, except to say that the larger the group the longer it takes to get from point A to point B. What interested the task force was how could they do things more cost-effectively, more efficiently and not have the same type of deferred maintenance problem over the long-term. Number 0323 MR. DEWITT said, "One of the concessions they [task force] generally made is that if folks want to come to the state for financing, and many instances up to 98 percent state funding, then we have the opportunity and the obligation to try and make our investment as sound as possible, as efficient as possible, and providing for as good maintenance downstream as economical as possible. The task force looked at it in the context of how do we make sure state resources are expended in the most efficient fashion possible." Number 0340 SENATOR GARY WILKEN indicated there seems to be a stigma attached to a prototype school. The task force experienced that stigma in Fairbanks when someone suggested having a prototype system in the late 1980s. Through his relationship with the school board and the school district Senator Wilken said he experienced that fear, that they were going to have schools that would all look the same, and they didn't really apply to anyone. Number 0348 SENATOR WILKEN said there are seven prototype schools and that Fairbanks is extremely pleased with their prototype system and would not do it any other way. Number 0354 SENATOR WILKEN pointed out the state would first have to sell the idea that it is okay to have two schools in a city that look the same. He said the state needs to have some basis of comparison when we have requests for funding for schools. Number 0366 SENATOR WILKEN said, "Why do we build in Fairbanks, we just built a 600 student school for $9.9 million. Why does somewhere else need a $28 million school for 280 students... We have to have some sense in the relationships in cost, and by standardizing, and by saying, 'Well, could we put a prototype school in the Kashunamiut district.' If we could, what's it going to cost... If we could save 10 or 15 percent at the outset on capitol, we can get down that list quicker to benefit all the kids. And once we get a prototype school in place, and we have a system that works, most school districts throughout the state - we then save on on-going expenses." Number 0387 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated his concern is that when a state begins to impose conditions on districts that often times that part of the selling, that Senator Wilken mentioned, is bringing people along. If you bring people along by including them in the process that develops a prototypical school design you are minimizing the sales job you have to do. Including people in the design phase may make sense because at the end you are not telling them what to do. They feel they have a stake in what has been done. Number 0402 SENATOR WILKEN stated he agreed with Representative Elton. He said the first thing they have to remember is why they are building the schools. It is to provide the best educational atmosphere for the children and the product is as good as we can make it. Number 0405 SENATOR WILKEN said the second thing may or may not be a statement of what the school means to a community and how it reflects the community's values. He stated that that is a part of it and the state has set aside some money to do that. He said it became crystal clear to him when he traveled from Buckland to Kiana and he said for example, put two schools on a barge and drop one off at Kiana and then go on up river and drop one off in Buckland - same school - those kids will never know the difference. Number 0418 SENATOR WILKEN indicated they could do it for a lot less than what is being done - if they started from day one and designed a school just for Buckland and for Kiana. He told Representative Elton that he could not agree more, they would have to keep local people involved. Number 0421 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON saw problems in practice. One of them is that Alaska has varying conditions with ice-rich ground and high- temperature permafrost, these are significant foundation problems. Number 0428 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said secondly, once you standardize on components there is a great danger of limiting the competitive bidding process for mechanical, electrical systems and so on. Number 0429 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said the third issue is is that there has been rapid progress in building materials, insulating windows, and energy systems. He believed there is a danger with doing prototypes, that we do not lock ourselves into something that in five or ten years becomes obsolete. Number 0435 SENATOR WILKEN stated Mr. Mackler would address the three items. Number 0441 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ said he understood prototype design schools would save money. He asked how many schools were in the K- 6 [kindergarten through sixth grade] zone and how much money will be saved. Number 0446 SENATOR WILKEN referred to the capital project list from the Department of Education. He said, "Total that up, take some amount that won't be appropriate for prototypical design for some reason, total that up and come up with some hundreds of millions of dollars and take 10 or 20 percent of that. I think that's a rough number of what we'll save." He said a goal would be to save 10 percent to get one new school for every ten that the state builds. Number 0458 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ believed, page 2, the next to last resolve, was the exception that swallows the rule -- prototypes, except where it might not be appropriate. He said he imagined that the determination of appropriateness would be made at the local level. Number 0465 SENATOR WILKEN replied the Bond Reimbursement Committee was formed in 1994, and that both himself and Chair James are members of that committee. When he attended his first meeting in August, he examined their responsibilities. He said one of the six charges is to evaluate prototypical design. He believed they had done some work on that process and the appropriateness decision comes from the Bond Reimbursement Committee. Number 0472 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS pointed out the Kenai Peninsula has had several prototype schools. He said they did manage to change them somewhat but, that drove the cost up. He suggested they look at the fact that they have a finite amount of dollars, and that it is better to build the same type of schools and to build more of them. He said he hoped to spread them out across the cities where they need them. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated in his district, when they want to do something they raise the money and do it and as long as the state is paying for it there are certain guidelines that they must adhere to. He said, "We can do small things in the schools to make them unique or different. But unless we're going to pay for them ourselves, I think that we should make a good development on a prototype design and put that across the state - build more schools, that's what we need. We don't need individual schools." Number 0493 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN said his district has partial or very little permafrost, however, there was a lot of permafrost in the surrounding communities and they do not have the economy as his other colleagues have. Representative Ivan said a housing prototype, which was designed and engineered to work well in California or in Seattle Washington, was introduced to his district. He wished they could design for Arctic conditions that would fit a lot of Bush communities. He suggested they be flexible as they design and consider community input to improve the design. Number 0525 SENATOR WILKEN agreed with Representative Ivan's statements and noted that they have learned from the Molly Hootch schools and hoped they would not make the same mistakes. Number 0529 SENATOR WILKEN stated we have an Arctic school, a southcentral school and a southeast school and the foundations are a variable, the roof is also going to have to be a different configuration. He concluded the state needs to obviously design for the climate, and will go back to local input. Number 0538 MR. DEWITT said they added a whereas - a public facility should be designed to accurately reflect the unique needs of the sub-Arctic and Arctic environment. Number 0546 CHAIR JAMES stated the HCR 24 instructs the Department of Education to come up with suggested statutory changes that they need to implement the plan. Number 0558 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out the resolution focuses on K-6 and indicated the number of students in K-6 vary widely throughout the state. Consequently, there could be problems associated with the development of prototypical schools that might be appropriate to Anchorage as opposed to Fairbanks or someplace else that is more remote. He said if we submit to the Department of Education a requirement that they come up with a K-6 plan and we ignore the other needs the community has for that structure, maybe this isn't broad enough. Number 0571 SENATOR WILKEN said he thinks we have to walk before we run. To tackle the issue of a junior high or a high school, the educational component requirements are varied much more so than a K-6. He said, "So let's take ten years and make K-6 work. If that works so well, then we'll maybe a prototype junior high." He informed the committee members there is currently one on the board in Fairbanks. Number 0579 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said they need to know where they are going and if they know there is going to be certain problems or constraints they might as well incorporate that knowledge before they stand up and stride in the direction that might prove unfruitful. Number 0581 SENATOR WILKEN agreed. Number 0584 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "In Bush locations do they have K-6, usually K-8 isn't it. So, if you develop a prototypical school designed for K-6 would that be applicable..." Number 0589 SENATOR WILKEN suggested the committee amend it to cover K-8. Number 0604 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY said, "To put together the relationship between the deferred maintenance problem and how they are going to reegineer the Molly Hootch program for the twenty-first century it seems like the subject before us is not deferred maintenance." He asked if someone could tie these together for him. Number 0609 CHAIR JAMES said some of the problems that came up with deferred maintenance are money and maintenance. She said the task force also found completely different furnace systems, systems even by now that you could probably not get replacement parts for, or have to order out-of-state because they are not available. Number 0620 CHAIR JAMES stated part of the goal of the Deferred Maintenance Task Force was to catch up and to keep up. She said it would not do them any good if they have a plan to catch up all the deferred maintenance that has been neglected over the years. She said, "If six years from now - which was the original plan to have us caught up, that we are suddenly faced with another six years of deferred maintenance because we have not been able to keep up at the same time." She stressed that this is part of the keep up and that it does have a direct relationship to on-going maintenance. Before any district receives money for deferred maintenance they must first have a maintenance plan in place. Chair James said, "We want to be sure that catching up once will keep us up in the future. This whole issue, although it seems to be far off field, does definitely relate to the amount of money that it will take to keep up our buildings in the future. And it is a correction of the Molly Hootch buildings and construction." Number 0641 DOUG GREEN, Architect, testified from Anchorage on behalf of the American Institute of Architects and the Alaska Professional Design Council. Mr. Green believed HCR 24 was moving in the right direction. He said they have contacted the American Institute of Architects and found that the state of Georgia conducted a survey in 1991 and that 49 states have tried prototypical school design. He said many of those states had tried this program, and many of them have discontinued it for various reasons and a handful of states are pursuing this on a statewide basis. Number 0660 MR. GREEN felt there is good use of prototypical designs and that large population centers with similar site conditions, within a school district, are advantageous for prototypical design. He said Fairbanks, Anchorage and Kenai are currently using prototypical design and it seems to work fairly well in those areas. Number 0664 MR. GREEN said they also realized that there is a wide variety of conditions, locales and sizes of classes in school districts throughout Alaska. And because of that trying to standardize one school to fit all of those needs is something they feel is a very difficult task to undertake and may not warrant the time and money expended in pursuing it. He also felt there is great advantage to be looked at in standardizing some of the components that go into these schools. It was suggested previously that a cataloging of good practices and things that have worked throughout the state standardizing of different components of a school may be something they could definitely find some good effort and good results from. Number 0676 MR. GREEN brought up the liability issue. He said with designs that are created by architects, the architect has a liability for those designs that he stamps. In a prototypical situation they are concerned, including their insurance companies, about the liability that goes along with a prototypical school. If someone takes that design and starts to modify it, the liability becomes void and there may be some difficulties down the road. The major Anchorage and Fairbanks school districts have utilized the same firm for their prototypical school designs and that seems to work fairly well, especially if there are multiple firms that have a prototype design that can be bid competitively. Number 0688 MR. GREEN reiterated that the technology, the codes, and many components of the schools are continually evolving and changing. He said, "We want to make sure we stay in tune with - for the best energy savings and cost savings. One thing that was brought out, and was critical to them, was that they found that the schools that are cared for the best are ones where the community is directly involved in those schools - and has a sense of ownership in those schools. The others, that may have been forced or dropped in on a community, are sometimes taken for granted and are abused." Number 0702 MR. GREEN summarized that they would like to pursue, with the Department of Education, the idea of developing standardized components that can be configured in various ways to adapt to sight conditions and climatic conditions and still achieve the end result of the best possible design for the fewest number of dollars expended. Number 0707 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if standardized practices could be done through building codes. Number 0710 MR. GREEN responded that standardized practices is part of building codes. He said building codes are an attempt to standardize the way buildings are put together. It is not entirely the thrust of HCR 24 or the task force, it revolves more around standardizing what is the gymnasium, what is the classroom, how you do toilet rooms. TAPE 98-10, SIDE B Number 0004 MIKE MORGAN, Facilities Manager, Department of Education, came before the committee. He said many of the original comments they posed to the Senate were addressed in the changes that Senator Wilken presented to the House State Affairs Committee. He said the Department of Education had concerns about mandating particular use of prototypes because, while they do work well in certain situations, they are problems in other situations and those are primarily when there are varying site conditions. In this state there are varying sizes that are required for the schools, and those can cause challenges. Mr. Morgan said Senator Wilken mentioned they need to meet the educational needs of the programs being presented in the communities where they are being built. MR. MORGAN also referred to the climatic variations which start to be addressed in the committee substitute for the original resolution. He said, "But we also have climatic conditions such as snowdrifting patterns and wind conditions which range from high winds in the Anchorage area to those in the Aleutians and up the west coastal Alaska can be very high. Those changes may cause changes in the actual building configuration." Number 0050 MR. MORGAN said components should be explored. There are other cost saving measures which might be of benefit to explore at this same time. Number 0056 CHAIR JAMES asked if the committee substitute gives sufficient latitude for the Department of Education to respond to the basic request. Number 0006 MR. MORGAN believed it does because the committee substitute puts it back into the bond reimbursement and grant review committees and says explore this topic. Number 0069 CHAIR JAMES she said they would need access to parts. She asked if they were using particular types of equipment would the private industry see fit to keep parts on order. She also asked if an inventory would be maintained. Number 0087 MR. MORGAN replied that that is the case. He said one of the big components that we need for repairs are heating systems. He noted most schools in the state have gone to boiler systems for a variety of good reasons. There are probably two or three primary suppliers right now, he believed there would be a long-term source of parts and supplies for those systems because there is a market demand. Mr. Morgan said we both see availability and good pricing in those items because of that availability and the demand. Number 0113 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to adopt CSHCR 24, February 4, 1998, 0-LS1345\B as the working draft. There being no objection, Version B was before the committee. Number 0126 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Morgan if he might be suggesting that if we design a prototypical school that meets a high wind shear problem, as there are in the Aleutians, that we may be adding a cost to a school not in the Aleutians that does not have wind problems but might have a snow load problem. Number 0143 MR. MORGAN agreed that could be the case. He said if you transplanted the Fairbanks prototypical school to Ketchikan, it may not have the same features that you would need in Southeast Alaska. But one of the things explored in the committee substitute is looking at the regional differences we have in the state and considering those climatic variations. Mr. Morgan said they are more comfortable with the committee substitute because those are issues that need to be explored. Number 0160 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there were other designs available, since we have been designing schools for a long time, that districts can choose to use or can draw on. Number 0166 MR. MORGAN said some repetition of errors that have been made in the past are still being made today. One of the goals the Department of Education had was to try to put together a compilation of lessons learned, both good and bad, except in Fairbanks and Anchorage where they are using the prototypical design and updating that design every time they build it. He mentioned Alaska has some design professionals who still seem to be repeating previous errors. Number 0189 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked about other cost saving measures the state could pursue. Number 0195 MR. MORGAN said one example is something that British Columbia is doing, and they have a wide range of climatic types also and it is a fairly large province. One thing they are requiring all of their new schools to have done is something called 'value engineering' which looks at the components of the school and the cost on a life cycle basis for the whole facility. So you say not only is it cheap today, but is it going to be cheap to maintain over the life of the building. He believed that would be of value to explore as they look at this. Number 0211 LEN MACKLER, Director, Physical Plant Department, Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) School District, testified on behalf of the Fairbanks FNSB School District. He said Fairbanks uses a 600 student elementary K-6 prototype although they have recently used it in a 3-6 school and have made some modifications. Mr. Mackler said, "The first one was built in 1983, we wrote the architectural contract at that time, so that the school district owns the design. We don't have to pay for its use each time. We have built six of these schools since then, with the most recent one coming on line this fall. We do improve the design each time, as you heard other people talk about, we go back into the school and ask everybody from the custodian to the nurse and to every teacher, 'If you were to do this over again what would you do differently.' And we use those comments in the next design." Number 0228 MR. MACKLER said the design they have been replicating requires a fairly flat site. However, they also own a hilly site design but have not had to use it again because they have not had a hilly sight a second time. Mr. Mackler pointed out that the last school that was built in Fairbanks opened this last fall. He said the construction costs for a 63,000 square foot school cost $9.9 million, which is $157 a square foot. Number 0233 MR. MACKLER said the benefits they have realized in Fairbanks are the time that it takes, it takes them one year less in the design phase because they do not need to do the full building design. They only have to do a site design and update the building design from previous experience. He said this saves us one year of inflation costs which is running about two and one half percent. It gets the children into better facilities quicker and reduces the overcrowding. Mr. Mackler said, "The other thing it does, is it gives our voters, who have pulled the lever on the ballot box some significant time before, a much quicker time until they pull the lever on the door handle opening the school. Some times it's hard to explain to them why it takes so long and we think this helps." Number 0245 MR. MACKLER believed they had a considerable savings in money. The design fees, on the new schools, are running about five percent of construction costs versus about 10 percent plus on a completely new design. The FNSB School District has a brand new middle school of 63,000 square feet getting ready to go to bid and the design fees on that are running 11 percent. The difference is 6 percent. The $9.9 million construction cost for the last prototype would have been $600 thousand. A year savings of inflation at two and one half percent would have been another $250 thousand. For those two items alone they believe they are saving $850 thousand on this school or eight and one half percent. MR. MACKLER said the third benefit is the competitiveness in the bids. The contractors around town and around Alaska all know that the previous low bidders of every one of these projects has made money and everybody has come away smiling. They hire foremen from other firms that have done the job, they hire workmen who have worked on the job, they hire subs who have worked on the job, they even trade each others plans and sell each others plans back and forth. They like to bid on the schools because they know that the designs are very complete, there is not going to be change orders and huge problems that are going to slow down construction that are found once they get into it. It is his belief that the square foot costs are about five percent lower because of the prototypical design or about half a million on a project of the size they have. When you add those to the previous savings he mentioned, he believed we are saving about 14 percent in overall construction cost which is about $1.3 million which they think is significant. Number 0279 MR. MACKLER said the fourth area that they believe is good is the educational program is well served. The teachers and the principals love these designs, they know that they have significant input into it and will continue to have input into it. He said, "As we design each new one the students, teachers, principal and the community that are going to be going into it are consulted and determine the colors, some of the site design issues, the school name, mascot, and choose the art for the building." MR. MACKLER said the fifth benefit is the first year start-up problems. Typically in a brand new design, you have a terrible problem the first year that you go into occupation. Heating systems (indisc.), balanced rooms are overheated, under heated, intercom stations do not work, telephones do not work right, it becomes a huge problem. Because the building is under warranty for one year and owned by the contractor still, there are huge arguments between the maintenance staff and the contractor's staff. And a lot more finger pointing is done about who caused the problem and who has to fix it then there is wrench turning done to fix it. Mr. Mackler said they have very few problems in start-up because of the standard components, the standard building design and we figured all those problems out. This means happier teachers in front of kids and happier kids concentrating on education. Number 0303 MR. MACKLER stated the sixth item is standardization. He said we have extensive standardization of the building systems, the components and the products in them. This reaps huge rewards in the overall long-term routine and major maintenance program. Number 03007 MR. MACKLER said the seventh item is that they use components of the prototype design in renovating and additions to older elementary schools. So it doesn't just apply to brand new designs. We use the components we have in the facility as we do in an old building, the classrooms standards we use when we go in and renovate classrooms and libraries, et cetera. We believe that helps us with design also. Number 0313 MR. MACKLER said our teachers, students and principals like this. The FNSB School Board and community like the design and understand the benefits of it. It saves significant money in initial construction and in the long-term maintenance program. It also saves them time in design and construction. Mr. Mackler said, "We think that any loss that you have by the (indisc.) and the community of buy-in for an extensive add, specification and design process is offset by the fact that it is widely accepted by everybody as you go into this that these schools function well and work well and each of our communities, as we are building a new one, wants the prototype." Number 0325 MR. MACKLER believed it also solves the problem of equity among various communities in our school district. He said if you build one school differently and everybody thinks it is better then they have, then you start having equity problems. Number 0330 MR. MACKLER answered the question on maintenance costs and how it affects us. In the FNSB School District, their maintenance and utility cost, as a percentage of their overall operating budget, was running about 18 percent back in the middle 1980s when they started using the prototypes. Now that they have a significant number of them, he believes that it has contributed to the fact that they now only have a 13 percent of their overall operating budget in maintenance. That is a five percent reduction which, for them, equals six million dollars. Mr. Mackler said they look at every $60 thousand saved in maintenance as another teacher in front of students in the FNSB school district. The FNSB School District believes prototypes helped considerably on that. Number 0340 MR. MACKLER replied to the question, how do they deal with the foundation difference in different site conditions. He said they have had a number of different site conditions, mostly from soils and from utilities. The biggest difference they found was one of their sites had such extensive permafrost that they had to put the building on pilings and that worked fine but it cost a little more than a regular excavation refill and spread footing but it is working fine and you would never know the fact that University Park Elementary, which the Deferred Maintenance Task Force drove by, was actually built on pilings. Number 0349 MR. MACKLER responded to the discussion of competitive bidding when you standardize on components. He said the FNSB is very sensitive to that and they believe there are ways to do that. Mr. Mackler said they are not sole sourcing components of the building, the components they have listed are available competitively, or they have two listed. Number 0355 MR. MACKLER addressed the question about keeping up with the changes in technology and components of buildings. He said we monitor that constantly as we get ready to update a design to build a new one, we look at what systems are available, or what improvements are available and we incorporate those. He noted that they have done that extensively with the digital control system. He said that is the direct digital control system, the computerized system that runs the building. Mr. Mackler said they have upgraded that extensively over the years, they have changed the telephone and the intercom system and changed some of the heating components, the digital control system, etcetera to better reflect the technology that works. He stressed the FNSB does not jump on the first thing that comes down the pike, but things that are being proven throughout the nation to work they roll into the design. Number 0371 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS congratulated Mr. Mackler on their program and thanked him for his diligence. He added that he should be an example for the rest of the state. Number 0380 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Mackler how much of the success that they have had in Fairbanks comes from the discreteness of their school district. He said you are able to plan on new elementary schools coming on, each serving a student population of 600. The concern he has is that in a larger school district you may have more of a chance of success with prototypical schools than in districts in which their schools are in villages of differing sizes and with different conditions. Representative Elton believed Fairbanks has an advantage over some other districts. Number 0395 MR. MACKLER responded that was obviously their experience and they are probably blessed because they have a lot of the conditions in place that make the use of this extremely successful. He did not believe the kind of extreme success that they have had can be done all around the state. But, there are smaller districts that have a number of village sites where some parts of this program could be usable, it could be helpful even if it is just on a component basis where they decide what they want in an elementary classroom. That is the core building block of an elementary school, how big is it, how many kids are you going to serve, what is the configuration of it, do you want it to have an exterior window, how do you want the lighting to work, where do you want the computer drops, what kind of flooring and wall surfaces do you want, etcetera. He believed all of those things could be done at the very basic level and could work for anybody, and then from there on up, depending on the district of the schools and how many you are building. He said it depends on how much more of it you could use. Number 0420 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referenced the seven prototypical schools occupied now and the 30 schools total of which 22 are elementary schools. He asked what percent of the savings came from the prototypical school. Representative Vezey said, "I think we may be misleading just how much efficiency from design changes and how much efficiency we've achieved just from better management." Number 0421 MR. MACKLER replied he believed it was elements of both. He mentioned quite a few of these new schools have replaced older schools such as the two that serve Fort Wainwright students replace a total of five smaller archaic elementary schools that were costing them a terrific amount in maintenance and utility costs. He believed the fact that they have seven prototypes serving 600 kids each, versus out of their 22 total elementary schools, most of the rest of them are smaller. He thought the prototypes in shear numbers have a bigger effect. MR. MACKLER also believed that components of the prototype that they have developed through standardization of how their heating systems work, what their insulation regiment is, how their classrooms are laid out, doors and have incorporated in renovations to many of their older elementary schools have also helped. He also believed there are other things that go into it and hoped he didn't mislead them to say the five percent they have saved over those years has been totally due to prototypes, he thought it had contributed a significant amount. Number 0449 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what savings he thought they achieved in energy efficiency in the past 15 to 16 years. Number 0452 MR. MACKLER replied that their heating bills for the FNSB district, back in the middle 1980s, were approaching a million dollars a year. Most of that is fuel oil, some of it is steam heat, but their heating bills now are down in the neighborhood of $750,000. He believed that was a combination of more efficient schools, better insulation, better heating systems and better maintenance on it, the digital control systems that are on most of the buildings that do goodnight set back and control the heat better. A lot of those things have contributed to a significant savings in heating costs. Number 0463 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the savings from lower competitive bids, as the contractor watches the market, he believed Mr. Mackler had done far better on competitive bids. Representative Vezey said Mr. Mackler is running nearly 20 percent to 25 percent below the commercial rate for similar type structures. He asked how much more help is needed from the state Department of Education to accomplish these goals. Number 0474 MR. MACKLER responded that he would need the legislature's assistance and cooperation with requests and continued funding for older buildings that need renovations and upgrades. Number 0478 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Mackler how he made the decision to use a prototypical school design in Fairbanks and what he thought the response of the residents would be if the state were to impose a prototypical design on them. Number 0482 MR. MACKLER said he believed the decision was made in the early 1980s. Three elementary schools were under construction at one time and three different architects were working on these designs with different concepts and ideas. When the schools were completed the FNSB school district and the state looked at them and were happy with one, with varying degrees of happiness with the others. Since more elementary schools would be built in the future, probably every three years or so, it was believed they needed to come up with a design that works rather than starting from scratch and taking so long. Number 0498 MR. MACKLER responded to Representative Berkowitz question regarding the state imposing prototypical design. He said if the state imposed the one they have they would love it. And if somebody else's was imposed they would have to look at it and see why it was better than the one they have. If it didn't meet the need of their teacher's educational program they would probably riot. Number 0504 CHAIR JAMES said prototypical design is like seeing a Pizza Hut everywhere, but when talking about the components of prototypical design of the schools, this would not be forcing prototypical design on any district that already has one, but maybe suggesting improvements. Number 0522 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move CSHCR 24 out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Number 0526 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected and stated his objections for the record. He said there are a series of decisions that have yet to be made which were mentioned earlier in the meeting. The Department of Education is going to have to come back and tell the legislature how much it is going to cost and whether there are going to be statutory changes to do that. Number 0549 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted his philosophical objection was that decisions are made at high government levels, and then they are moved back down to local levels. He stated that this moves in the opposite direction. What is being suggested by the committee substitute is that the state will be telling people in local districts, and local school boards, what is best for them rather than letting the local districts decide for themselves. He indicated that Mr. DeWitt and Representative Hodgins suggested, since the state is paying for it, therefore, the state should set the rules. Representative Elton said the state is paying for most of the academic programs also, does that necessarily mean that the state should be setting the academic standards and what is being taught in the classroom rather than local school boards. Number 0551 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he would rather have 'elementary schools' rather than 'K-6'. He said K-6 does not work in a lot of the small rural settings. He then indicated he would vote to move the bill out so that the discussion could continue. Number 0558 CHAIR JAMES responded to Representative Elton's remarks. She believed this legislature, the administration and everyone would be willing to let every local entity in the state make all their own decisions providing they are also willing to pay. It appeared, to what she has heard, no one wants to pay for these things. Chair James concluded this would be mandatory, there will be no choice. Number 0575 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ voiced his objection. He referenced the map of the United States with Alaska superimposed, stretching across from Florida to California. He said the resolution is suggesting that it would be appropriate to have the same design in Florida, Nebraska, Colorado and California. He pointed out local areas should have the opportunity to say the design is not appropriate, and that is incorporated in the bill. However, that kind of determination on a local level, which apparently is going to be made by a bond committee - not by the folks who actually have to use the school, is this sort of exception that swallows the rule. Number 0585 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted the architect stated we don't want to have a standardized design. There is an opportunity to have standardized practices and components, but that is not what this piece of legislation does. Number 0590 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated Mr. Mackler's statement, if folks in Fairbanks had to use a prototypical design they might well riot. Number 0597 CHAIR JAMES stated that is not what the legislation is intended to do. Number 0598 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he did not hear any concrete numbers on the savings from having the Department of Education make these studies. He believed they are sending the Department of Education out to do a job that is defined very poorly and that the opportunity for generating results that are going to yield any benefit are very minimal. Number 0604 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said what HCR 24 does, is it creates a homogenized Alaska. We are going to make it easy to do things the same way for everyone at all times and that, with the exceptions written in the bill, is not possible. Number 0606 CHAIR JAMES stated she asked Mr. Morgan if the language gave him the latitude to do just exactly what Representative Berkowitz was referring to. Number 0610 MR. MORGAN said yes. Number 0611 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY said he shared Representative Elton's philosophical concerns. Representative Vezey motioned to move a possible amendment on page 2, by deleting lines 14 through 31, because he believed the legislature would be sending a message that he is not prepared to support. Number 0625 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. DeWitt to address the changes that were added in the Senate. Number 0628 MR. DEWITT explained the change on line 15 was recommended by the Department of Administration. He stated Senator Wilken indicated elementary was probably as good a term as K-6. Lines 16 through 18 were as a result of discussions with people that Mr. Green represents, Senator Leman and discussions with engineers. He believed lines 24 through 27 were as a result of general discussions responding to a concern raised by the Department of Education that a full prototype in some instances may not be appropriate but that components might well be. Number 0640 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Hodgins for his permission to go back to change K-6 to elementary. Number 0642 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS had no objection. Number 0646 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made the motion to adopt a conceptual amendment, "eliminate the term K-6 and inserting the words elementary schools on page 2, line 15." There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 0654 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS reinstated his motion to move CSHCR 24 [misstated as CSHB 274] as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Number 0659 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected. Number 0665 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dyson, Elton, Hodgins, Ivan and James voted in support of moving CSHCR 24. Representatives Berkowitz and Vezey voted against moving CSHCR 24. Therefore, CSHCR 24(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. CSSB 105(FIN) am - ETHICS/LOBBYING/CAMPAIGN FINANCE TAPE 98-11, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business was, CSSB 105 (FIN) am, "An Act relating to legislative and executive branch ethics; relating to campaign finances for candidates for state office; relating to the conduct and regulation of lobbyists with respect to public officials; relating to the filing of disclosures by certain state employees and officials; making a conforming amendment to the definition of 'public official' for employment security statutes; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Senator Kelly. Number 0029 BENJAMIN BROWN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Tim Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, testified on behalf of Senator Tim Kelly, sponsor. Mr. Brown stated SB 105 is an omnibus ethics and to a certain lesser extent campaign reform act. He said the bill was originally introduced at the request of the Legislative Ethics Committee to address a number of deficiencies in the ethics code that have arisen over the past few years since the legislature started operating under the new law. Number 0035 MR. BROWN pointed out the Senate State Affairs Committee made substantial amendments to take a lot of the provisions of our Legislative Ethics Code and graft them on to the Executive Branch Ethics Act in Title 39.50. Number 0047 MR. BROWN said small discrete targeted campaign finance reform changes have been inserted into the bill to remedy over sizing the campaign finance law passed by the legislature in 1996. He indicated some of the changes are campaign finance issues that are logically related to ethical behavior by members of the legislative branch and the executive branch. MR. BROWN referred to the legislative branch ethics, he said many of the amendments change the statutes to conform to what the Legislative Ethics Committee is already doing. He indicated that they are not disobeying the law, but are taking a little bit of liberty in the way they have interpreted the law. Advisory opinions have been issued to legislators and staff who ask, "Is it okay if I do this, or not." Number 0070 MR. BROWN said the executive ethics code dates back to 1986 and is very different in comparison to the Legislative Ethics Code. The executive code apparently works pretty well but a lot of legislators are not familiar with it. Mr. Brown said the legislature is working to make sure we do not put anything that does not belong in the executive branch code from the legislative code. Number 0093 MR. BROWN noted a series of amendments have been proposed by various members of the legislature. He indicated the first 10 amendments would be distributed along with a memorandum analyzing them. Number 0097 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Brown to give a brief history of how SB 105 evolved from relatively technical fixes to the Legislative Ethics Code to include campaign finance reform and the executive branch ethics. Number 0104 MR. BROWN said SB 105 was introduced last year at the request of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. Its first hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee saw the expansion of the bill to include the legislative branch ethics at the initiative of Senator Pearce, that is where the Executive Branch provisions were added. He noted that that is a duplication of something she had done in the Nineteenth Legislature. Senator Pearce's bill made it to the House Finance Committee, however, it failed to move because of a spousal lobbing issue. This matter once again appears in the bill. Number 0121 MR. BROWN said he did not believe there was a desire to put an inordinate number of campaign finance changes into the bill. He noted things in Title 15, which relate to campaign finance, are very closely related to ethical behavior. Ethics concerns people raising money for their campaigns, so it is related even though they are not in the same part of the Alaska Statute. Mr. Brown pointed out the bill takes on new purposes in the Senate. He reported it passed the Senate 17 to 2, with one member excused, and the two members who voted against it were members of the majority. He concluded most of the things in the bill do deal with the Legislative Ethics Act. Number 0144 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON observed when concealed handgun laws move through we say keep it simple, keep it simple. He indicated that has not happened with this bill. Number 0170 NEIL SLOTNICK, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Section, Department of Law, stated he is the ethics attorney for the state. He said he has had the responsibility, for the past four years, to implement the Executive Branch Ethics Act. Mr. Slotnick said the way the statute currently works is that the Department of Law issues advisory opinions and also performs enforcement work when an ethics complaint is filed. Then a hearing would be held before the personnel board in the Department of Administration. Number 0185 MR. SLOTNICK stated SB 105 makes sweeping changes to the Executive Branch Ethics Act. He pointed out the bill went through the Senate without detailed examination, section by section, of the changes that are made to the Executive Branch. Obviously it is the legislature's prerogative to change the Ethics Act if there are policy calls made all the way along. He said he felt it was important that a careful analysis be done when making changes. Number 0215 MR. SLOTNICK noted Mr. Brown and committee staff have identified problem areas and need for improvement. He indicated there are serious problems when you meld in the Legislative Branch Ethics Act with an existing law, that has worked for 10 years, and you superimpose one upon the other without actually withdrawing the provisions that are there. Number 0225 MR. SLOTNICK said to put it simply, the Legislative Branch Ethics Act is more of a laundry list approach, whereas the Executive Branch Ethics Act is perhaps more of a standards of conduct approach and it is easier to read and understand. He felt either approach could work. Number 0238 CHAIR JAMES stated she had a lot of difficulty with campaign finance issues and ethics issues. She said it seems like any kind of enforcement of an issue pulls the roots out as opposed to trimming the bush. It makes the choices that we have so limited that sometimes we can't even do ethical behavior because it might be construed to be unethical. She pointed out that the same is true in the Open Meeting Act. Number 0280 MR. SLOTNICK stated the heart of the Executive Branch Ethics Law is Section 39.52.120 and it is a very simple law. It states, "A public officer may not use or attempt to use an official position for personal gain." He concluded that that is the standard and that is what is enforced and interpreted. He believed it has worked very well to eliminate unethical conduct and to prosecute violators, and at the same time, to avoid the unwarranted ethics complaint that is perhaps filed for reasons that do not really have anything to do with necessarily unethical conduct. He urged the House State Affairs Committee to be very careful in amending that. Number 0298 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked how much time would it take to make specific suggestions. Number 0301 MR. SLOTNICK deferred that question to Mr. Brown. Number 0328 CHAIR JAMES stated SB 105 is scheduled to be heard again on Thursday, February 12. Number 0332 MR. BROWN responded to Representative Elton's question. He said he believed it would be more productive if he continued to work with Mr. Slotnick until they have substitute language. Mr. Brown said he would prefer not to go over the bill section by section. Number 0351 CHAIR JAMES suggested the committee members be familiar with the issues covered in CSSB 105 by next week. ADJOURNMENT Number 0361 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting at 9:54 a.m.

Document Name	Date/Time	Subjects

Open document in new windowX