Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/29/1993 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 82: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE GRANTS Number 291 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY did not have a copy of the working draft. REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE also needed a copy of the work draft. Number 297 CHAIR BUNDE OFFERED an AMENDMENT to the work draft concerning school districts' participating share, on page 2, line 22. His amendment recognized both the value of participation and the financial realities of some school districts. He proposed dropping the district participating share on line 22 to 5% from 20%. He asked for objections or discussion. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS had no problem with the amendment, and favored a top cap of from 30% to 40% at the most. He sought amendments to the language concerning all of the district participating shares, and said he would be glad to take the amendments one at a time. Number 323 REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG preferred that the district participating share for the districts identified on line 22 to be 0%. CHAIR BUNDE understood that preference, and called for further discussion on the amendment. Number 333 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS desired to add an amendment. CHAIR BUNDE preferred to take care of the amendments one at a time, and, hearing no objections, DECLARED HIS AMENDMENT PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS MOVED an AMENDMENT to page 2, line 23 to change the percentage to 25% from 30%; line 24 to change the percentage to 30% from 40%; and line 25 to change the percentage to 35% from 50%. Number 341 CHAIR BUNDE OBJECTED to the motion for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS said there was an effort to make school districts responsible for their desires, but also a desire to make the funding as equitable as possible. He said the 50% matching requirement was too high, and if the contribution levels were lowered for the poorer districts, then similar adjustments should be made for the richer districts. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that the committee was debating an issue not germane to the school funding issue, as up to 75% of the funds for school construction in the state did not come from the state, but from local or federal sources. Number 374 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked whether HB 83 would not be driven by HB 82. CHAIR BUNDE said he might have misunderstood Representative Brice's question, as the two bills were certainly related. Number 379 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he had been provided HB 83, a list of projects and an appropriations bill with $150 million going to those projects. He asked if the changes to HB 82 would change the amount of money available for the projects in HB 83. CHAIR BUNDE said that, while he hesitated to speak for the DOE, the percentages under consideration by the DOE were not the same as those presented by the DOE. He said the changes were revenue-positive. REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG said the committee might at least have to make HB 83 not subject to the changes in HB 82, because he was sure that HB 83 represented money available before any changes, and that if the committee changed the funding figures in HB 82 it would throw off the numbers in the priority list. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that the committee would have to change the effective date on HB 82. He said the committee should keep in mind that it could establish various effective dates for different parts of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked a representative from the DOE to explain the impacts of the changes in the district participating share provisions of HB 82 on Rural Education Attendance Areas (REAAs). Number 424 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG said that the work draft of CSHB 82 (HES) eliminated paragraph C, relating to the phase-in of the REAA district participation share. He said it was obvious that such a provision could not take effect in 90 days. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY raised a point of order. He asked if it was possible to limit discussion to the amendment before the committee, instead of veering back to HB 82, as amended. Number 437 CHAIR BUNDE noted that the amendment before the committee was whether to make the changes in district participation shares that Representative G. Davis had suggested, which reduced the percentages from 30% to 25%, 40% to 30%, and 50% to 35% for school districts falling into varying categories of property value. He said the committee would consider the changes one at a time. He then asked if there were objections to the first reduction from 30% to 25% on line 23. He said, "Forgive me, Anchorage, but they have told me they would support 30%, and so I would speak against your reduction to 25%." He then asked for other opinions. Number 446 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS asked Representative G. Davis to repeat his amendment. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS repeated his amendment for Representative B. Davis' clarification. Number 452 REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked whether the committee had already passed an amendment to line 22. CHAIR BUNDE replied in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS wanted to make an amendment. CHAIR BUNDE said there was a previous amendment on the floor. He called for a roll call vote on that amendment. Those voting YEA were Representatives B. Davis, Nicholia, Brice, and G. Davis. Those voting NO were Representatives Vezey, Olberg, Toohey, and Bunde. The AMENDMENT FAILED. Number 474 REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS MOVED an AMENDMENT that would eliminate the requirement that REAAs make a matching contribution for state school construction funding. She did not believe that REAAs could afford to pay 5% of the cost of such projects. CHAIR BUNDE noted that even the governor had wanted REAAs to eventually pay a 3.8% match. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS wanted to put CSHB 82 (HES) back to its original state, in which the match would start at 1.5%, then rise to 3.8% over several years. Number 476 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG noted that the matching requirement for REAAs in the original version of HB 82 called for them to pay a 1% match in the school year starting in 1994, which would increase by 1.4% in each of the next two years, to a total of 3.8%. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said that her amendment would have the effect of requiring matching contributions of 5% from districts with property valued at from $1 to $100,000 per full value per ADM (Average Daily Membership). Number 485 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY OBJECTED. CHAIR BUNDE noted the objection and called for further discussion. Number 487 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Representative B. Davis to restate her motion. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS repeated her motion, to have the 5% matching requirement apply to those school districts with property value per ADM of from $1 to $100,000. That would eliminate from that bracket the 21 REAAs, which have no property value. CHAIR BUNDE said that at this point the REAAs would be receiving 100% state funding for school construction. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said the committee could later address that issue. CHAIR BUNDE noted that the governor's bill required the REAAs eventually to pay 3.8% as matching grants. If the districts could pay 3.8%, he said, they could pay 5%. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that HB 82 had a clause exempting a REAA from having to make any matching contribution for school construction, if it could prove that it either could not do so, or that providing such a share would jeopardize its federal education funding. That clause had been eliminated from CSHB 82 (HES), she said, and recommended it be returned. Number 504 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY was reluctant not to require any local contribution, whether it was labor, material or equipment. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said her amendment did not deal with REAAs, as it was limited to districts with more than $1 per full value ADM in property value. She said the REAA issue could be dealt with later, but she did not want to require a 5% match from REAAs. Number 509 CHAIR BUNDE called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a roll call vote on Representative B. Davis' amendment. Those voting YEA were Representatives Nicholia, Brice, B. Davis, and Olberg. Those voting NO were Representatives Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, and Toohey. The measure FAILED. He then asked for further discussion. Number 524 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked a clarifying question on the percentage of local contribution shares required under HB 82, which were outlined in the working draft. CHAIR BUNDE said that the percentages existed as they were in the working draft. He called for further discussion on HB 82 as a whole. Number 527 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said his subcommittee on HB 82 had met three times, and had not gotten past section 3. He noted that the major impact of the bill was in its later sections, establishing the DOE as the body which would appropriate money for the school construction program outlined in the bill. He said that while the subcommittee debated the draft formula, the process of allocating grants was more important. He expressed concern about the legislature abrogating its appropriation authority. He recommended DELETING sections 4 through section 11. He then, for discussion purposes, MOVED DELETION of sections 4 through section 12. Number 548 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS OBJECTED. Number 550 MR. BADER said that the sections mentioned were already in statute, and the sections in CSHB 82 (HES) merely redefined construction projects to be capital improvement projects, and inserted language regarding use of the maintenance account, instead of the capital improvement account. He said the DOE valued the distinction between health-life- safety and unhoused student needs, and maintenance needs. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that the rest of the sections had little substance, and merely brought the statutes into line with the actions in the earlier sections of CSHB 82 (HES). Number 564 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG suggested that school districts precluded from future construction by paragraph 3 would not care about the subsequent sections. He said the committee had to give the DOE some leeway sooner or later. He allowed that he might not be understanding Representative Vezey's suggestion. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the sections he proposed deleting contained mostly housekeeping details, but also contained some key phrases that emphasized that CSHB 82 (HES) was based on the premise that a fund was established to be appropriated without further legislative action, specifically in section 7 and section 8. His concern was aggravated in that it appeared as though the legislature would have to use the constitutional budget reserve funds as a funding source, requiring a three-fourths vote of the full legislature. Number 586 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE CALLED THE QUESTION. CHAIR BUNDE noted the call, and repeated Representative Vezey's motion to delete section 4 through section 12. He called for a roll call vote. Representative Vezey voted YEA. Those voting NO were Representatives G. Davis, Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia, Brice, Toohey, and Bunde. The MOTION FAILED. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE MOVED an AMENDMENT to section 3, line 7, adding a new section D that would consist of language taken from the original HB 82, page 3, line 7, starting with "an REAA" and continuing through line 11. He said the amendment would return to the working draft the provision that REAAs would be exempted, in whole or in part, from the local contribution requirement if the commissioner of the DOE determined that the REAA could not afford the contribution, or if the contribution would jeopardize the REAA's federal funding. TAPE 93-50, SIDE B Number 005 CHAIR BUNDE noted OBJECTION to the motion, and invited discussion. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that his amendment would add a section C to section 3 which would allow various other funding sources, plus sweat equity or equipment, to be used as sources of matching funding. He said that his amendment would make it more equitable to require matching contribution from areas with lower property values. Number 030 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked whether the committee was assuming that REAAs could meet the match requirement with materials, equipment or labor. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE replied in the affirmative. He added that if REAAs could not offer any of those as matching contributions, then they should be able to write for a state grant. Number 045 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "May I further continue? If they don't have that to match, they don't have children in school. There is no way ... " REPRESENTATIVE BRICE interrupted. He disagreed, saying he had been in many villages on Alaska's west coast that could not afford to meet such matches. Number 052 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that rural school districts are the poorest of the poor, and that people in some villages are unemployed and barely survive. She said it would be as hard to find people to volunteer their time and work in the Bush as it would be in Anchorage. She SUPPORTED the amendment, as it addressed the actual bleakness of the situation in villages, where education was nonetheless important. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY echoed Representative Toohey's statement. He said that the cost of labor was 50% of the cost of construction, and land, about 5%. He could not conceive of an area that could not come up with 5% of the cost of school construction. He said that urban areas were not being treated fairly under HB 82. Number 100 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the inconceivable did occur, and if a school district was so broke it could not provide labor, resources or other contributions, then the amendment would never be put into effect. REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked to see a draft contract for a deal in which a district would provide volunteer labor. He said that land had value, and near Delta Junction 30 acres were for sale at $22,000. He said every community wanted to contribute something to its schools, and that was the reason he was drafting a school tax bill for the unorganized borough. He said that the local labor match would be difficult to effect, unless it were for site preparation. Number 135 CHAIR BUNDE strongly FAVORED a local match as a way to build pride in ownership. He SUPPORTED Representative Brice's amendment, as he understood the need for safety valves or mechanisms in exceptional circumstances. He called for a roll call vote. Those voting YEA were Representatives Brice, Toohey, Bunde, G. Davis, Olberg, B. Davis, and Nicholia. Representative Vezey voted NO. The MOTION PASSED. Number 150 CHAIR BUNDE called for further discussion and, hearing none, said he would entertain a motion. Number 153 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY MOVED PASSAGE of HB 82 with individual recommendations. CHAIR BUNDE asked for objections and, hearing none, the MOTION CARRIED. The committee next addressed HB 83.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|