HB 529 - APPROVE CENTRALIZED PUBLIC HEALTH LAB Number 082 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced the first order of business to come before the committee was HB 529. She said this bill had been before the committee previously and asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to testify. Hearing none, she closed public testimony. She inquired if the Department of Health & Social Services had any further testimony to present. ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant, Department of Health & Social Services, said based on his belief that the issues and questions most likely to be raised were going to be related to the financial aspects of the project, he had asked the representative from Coopers & Lybrand in New York to address the committee on the study that was done. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY noted for the record that public testimony had been re-opened. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS joined the meeting at 5:09 p.m. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY said based on a 1994 printout of the Centralized Option Lab Model, a strategic planning document from the Department of Health & Social Services, the estimated cost for the project in 1994 was $13 million and she expressed concern that in two years the cost had increased by $10 million. Number 385 TOM LANE, Facilities Manager, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Health & Social Services, said the original construction cost estimates were done in 1994 and did not include the medical examiner's laboratory. Since then, a follow up study worked on by Coopers & Lybrand was completed in 1995 and because of the two-year delay extra inflation costs were included, as well as costs for the medical examiner. He explained the department had originally tried to get an appropriation last year, so another year's inflation has also been added to the cost. He acknowledged it was a big jump in cost, but the increase included three years of inflation, space for the medical examiner, which wasn't originally included, and some changes in the financing costs. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY raised a concern about $2,931,000 for a medical examiner. MR. LANE said compared to the other costs, it was basically proportional to the space that would be required as proportional to the rest of the facility. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked if a breakdown of the space was available. MR. LANE said the department was roughly estimating about 4,400 square feet for the medical examiner and in the neighborhood of 22,300 square feet for the public health laboratory, itself. He explained that currently the lab is in two locations in Anchorage; the office is at the state trooper building and the laboratory space is at the crime detection laboratory. Number 538 REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG asked how many people were in the medical examiner's office. GREGORY V. HAYES DrPH, Chief, Section of Laboratories, Division of Public Health, Department of Health & Social Services, said he wasn't really sure, but knew of two pathologists and clerical support. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked that information be provided to the committee concerning the size of the space in relation to the personnel. He inquired if human remains would also be kept in that space. DR. HAYES responded affirmatively. MR. LANE said that Mr. Lindstrom indicated there are usually two or three autopsy assistants, a pathologist and some clerical support. They would provide the committee with a complete breakdown. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY asked how many individuals are currently doing autopsies? MR. LANE said he wasn't exactly certain how many people were involved. MR. LINDSTROM responded two pathologists. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked if the medical examiner space would be in addition to the proposed building. MR. LANE explained that something needs to be worked out for the medical examiner in the future because currently they are using borrowed space at the public safety building. They viewed this as an opportunity to "kill two birds with one stone" and also, it would allow them to get a symbiotic relationship between the different laboratories. He explained that the plan in the study focused on the public health laboratories, but given that something will need to be done with the medical examiner, this was an opportunity to consolidate those two programs. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY again reiterated her concern that 44,000 square feet was a large amount of space for a state with a population of 500,000 to 600,000. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG calculated the cost to be about $680 a square foot, assuming there were no service areas attached. MR. LANE said the original cost estimates were in the neighborhood of $400 per square foot. Costs would be added to that for equipment, administrative costs in terms of state employees who would be working on it at the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities and design costs. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he was in support of the laboratory, but the costs were extraordinary. MR. LANE interjected that laboratory space is very expensive. Number 785 CO-CHAIR TOOHEY thought it was irresponsible to ask for this kind of increase. MR. LINDSTROM noted the Department of Public Safety is very supportive of this project. The current space for the medical examiner is very limited and the Department of Public Safety very much wants to utilize that space in the crime lab for other purposes, including the DNA (indisc.). CO-CHAIR TOOHEY read an excerpt from the 94 project budget, "Land cost is considered to be $0, based on the use of state-owned property." She maintained that a $10 million increase in two years was not justifiable. CO-CHAIR BUNDE commented there were people on teleconference waiting to testify, but he felt there were too many unanswered questions and asked that the bill be held over to the following week. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out the increase wasn't quite $10 million, because it included interest, etc. He thought it was more like $5.5 million. Number 902 MICHAEL PRESS, Director, Coopers & Lybrand, said he was available to answer specific questions with regard to the statistical information, the cost of the lab and savings, the differential in savings between centralizing and possibly consolidating. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if Mr. Press had previously observed construction costs of this type of facility and if he had compared the proposed cost of this project with other projects. MR. PRESS responded he had found nothing unreasonable about the cost estimates that accompanied this legislation for the type of facility that is contemplated. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Press what a typical laboratory with similar specifications would cost in the United States, what percentage of Alaska cost adjustment was made for on this project, and to give a breakdown on the difference between equipment and specialized leasehold improvements. MR. PRESS advised committee members that the costs presented were not derived by Coopers & Lybrand per se. They reviewed the costs and found nothing unreasonable about them; however, the costs were specified by the firm of Livingston Slone, Inc., of Anchorage in conjunction with (indisc.) International, not as the contractor, but consulting design architects. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented he had a number of questions for Mr. Press and inquired if Co-Chair Toohey's intention was to hold the bill in committee. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY agreed there were a number of questions that needed to be answered, so the bill would be held in committee. Number 1140 CO-CHAIR BUNDE suggested that Mr. Lindstrom and the Department of Health & Social Services could probably answer many of the individual questions. MR. LINDSTROM felt the department had attempted to furnish as much information to individuals as possible, but it was his observation there would be questions that simply would not be answered satisfactorily to some individuals. CO-CHAIR TOOHEY announced that HB 529 would be held in committee and rescheduled at a later date.