Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
03/20/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB353 | |
| HB261 | |
| HB266 | |
| HB366 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 412 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 402 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 353 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 261 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 266-STATE EMPLOYEE DEPENDENTS CHILD CARE CTRS 8:47:56 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 266, "An Act relating to the approval and administration of child care services by the Department of Administration primarily for the benefit of state officers and employees; and providing for an effective date." 8:48:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB 266 as prime sponsor. She said, "At the heart of this is the hope that the state can step forward in allowing departments and employees - if they find it necessary - to have space for a private contractor to come in a do childcare." She said that [providing that child care] would have a huge economical and societal impact on Alaska. She noted that there is a committee substitute available, which clarifies that the department would actually have to make a determination as to whether there was a lack of availability of child care sufficient to justify an approval of a child care center, and which clarifies that there is "no intent to have any competition." 8:50:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 266, Version 25-LS0846\E, Wayne/Mischel, 3/17/08, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version E was before the committee. 8:50:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, in response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, noted that the new language added in Version E is found on page 2, lines 3-6, which read as follows: (b) Before approving the establishment of a program that provides child care services under AS 39.90.200 - 39.90.290, the department shall review the availability of state-licensed child care services in the municipality in which the program would be located to determine if there is a lack of availability sufficient to justify the approval. 8:50:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said although he supports the concept of the bill, he is concerned that if a child care contractor allowed into a state building were to "fold," the state would be responsible for taking over the operation of the child care center. 8:51:29 AM LEAH CARPENETI, Staff, Representative Beth Kerttula, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kerttula, prime sponsor of HB 266, directed attention to page 3, lines 3-4, which read: (b) Upon approval of the department, the sponsoring state agency may be responsible for the operation of the child care center when (1) procedures under AS 36.30 fail to procure a qualified service provider; or (2) the service provider's contract is cancelled and attempts to procure another qualified service provider are unsuccessful. MS. CARPENETI explained that there are enough "hoops" to jump through and the responsibility would not revert automatically. 8:52:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES referred to a sentence that begins on page 3, line 13, which read: Neither the operator nor any personnel employed by or at a child care facility shall be considered to be employees of the state unless a state agency operates the facility under AS 39.90.240(b). REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said that language concerns him. He acknowledged that plenty of people need child care, but he does not think the state needs to be in the position of running child care facilities. He said if the state opens the door to child care in one place, it will have to do so everywhere across the state. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she appreciates Representative Roses' concern, but it is not the intent of the bill that that happen. She said the plan uses components such as finding a provider and departmental decision-making. She added, "But it certainly is a policy call for the committee if you want to allow that as a fail-safe or not. We did keep it in as an absolute last choice." 8:54:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN mentioned the child care in the Federal Building and asked for information pertaining to it. MS. CARPENETI, in response to questions from Representative Johansen, noted that HB 266 is modeled on the federal bill that made possible the child care facility in Juneau's Federal Building. She noted that that facility used to be run by an organization based in Fairbanks, but a few years ago it changed to a board-run organization. She offered her understanding that the space for the child care facility in the Federal Building is provided [by the federal government]. The proposed legislation would allow for the state to provide the space or pass the cost for it along to the independent contractor. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if there is any possibility that the federal government could end up "on the hook" regarding any part of the aforementioned child care facility. MS. CARPENETI relayed that all the individual federal agencies in Juneau's Federal Building come together to cover the following costs of the child care facility: rent, utilities, and maintenance. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked for confirmation that the state would not operate the facility but would have a contract with an organization that would operate it. 8:57:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that while not in Juneau, in other arenas in the country the federal government does operate child care centers. MS. CARPENETI added that the federal government could choose to operate the child care facility in Juneau's Federal Building if it wanted to. 8:58:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to a "Legislative Research Report" dated June 19, 2007, [included in the committee packet], which he said shows a trend in the United States to provide [child care]. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA confirmed that some states do provide child care. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that at least 22 states do so. 8:58:50 AM MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said she does not know how many private companies offer their employees child care services, although the numbers of employers that do are increasing. She said the bill sponsor has statistics that show the positive benefits of onsite child care. She said the reason for the increase in facilities is because more and more households have "all of the available parents" in the workforce. In response to a follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg, she confirmed that an increasing number of companies are offering "pro-family" or "work life" options, which include not only onsite child care, but also the opportunity to work from home. Furthermore, some employers will buy "slots" in nearby child care facilities for their employees to use when their children have sick days, for example. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Do you know if the state provides that kind of alternative working arrangement that would alleviate the need for child care?" MS. CARPENETI replied that she does not believe the state buys any child care slots. In response to a follow-up question, she said she knows an increasing number of states are looking into "options like that," but she said she would have to look into the matter to find out more in-depth information. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that it certainly makes it easier for parents to work when states offer options related to child care. Parents fight a difficult situation if they cannot get child care or work via telecommunication. He asked what kind of financial arrangement is made by states that offer child care options and whether it is affordable for employees. 9:01:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered her understanding that California and Florida offer a sliding scale fee. 9:02:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there is any provision in the state's union contract that would require the state to provide child care in all its facilities once it offers it in one. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA responded as follows: I have no idea, and if that were the case, that would be a completely separate issue from this. This was inserted into the bill solely as ... the complete, last option, so that there was some stop gap. If the committee thinks it's inappropriate to start at this point with that, we can take it out of the bill and talk about it more. But it was really for the areas where we know there aren't any child care providers at this point. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON explained that he does not want the State of Alaska to find itself in the position of having to provide child care statewide, and he would like the record to show that that would not be the result of the proposed legislation. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she doesn't think the committee would not want to preclude "that." She stated her belief that people should have child care throughout state agencies. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he supports the concept of the bill, but reiterated that he doesn't want the state to end up responsible for paying for child care facilities. 9:05:27 AM FATE PUTMAN, Assistant Business Manager/Legislative Lobbyist, Alaska State Employees Association/American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (ASEA/AFSCME) Local 52, said there is nothing in the collective bargaining agreement that addresses child care facilities in state facilities. He stated, "I would consider it to be probably a permissive subject of collective bargaining. It may be something that in the future we would want to do, but our intent would be, of course, that everybody be able to have child care services in their facilities." He added, "It wouldn't be something that we would prohibit anybody else from doing." MR. PUTMAN, in response to Representative Johnson, said he thinks the idea of collective bargaining is that everyone is treated the same. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON concluded that that means providing child care in just one state facility could be an issue. 9:07:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she would like to see the state take leadership and offer child care to all its state employees. She talked about the economic impact of parents in the workforce. CHAIR LYNN said he does not want to expand the bill to include child care facilities throughout the state. 9:09:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how much an employer's offering child care increases that employer's competitiveness in attracting and keeping good employees. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the amount of people who have contacted her office regarding the issue indicates that the employer's competitiveness would be increased quite a bit. She said there is research supporting that. 9:09:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, regarding Representative Doll's point, said some legislators want to control the growth of government while others do not. He said although this issue is one that he would want to embrace, he is not a proponent of increasing the power of government to do a job that the private sector can do. He stated, "I'm not prepared to make the leap that the state should be every thing to every person." He said he would dislike seeing the state putting Juneau's child care facilities out of business by taking over the role of child care provider. 9:10:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he supports the concept of the bill, because the benefit of having children nearby their parents at work is that it is good for employees' morale and increases job attractiveness. However, he said he does not support getting "hooked into having a state-run day care center." CHAIR LYNN indicated that he concurs with most of what Representative Johansen expressed. REPRESENTATIVE DOLL opined that the proposed legislation is important and needs to be passed. She assured fellow committee members that she wants to stay on track and "not move into the larger issues." 9:13:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that the idea of having a state agency run the child care is intended only for areas in which there is no other choice. She proffered that if it is the committee's wish to amend the bill to take out that fail-safe measure, then the following sections would need to be removed from the bill: page 3, lines 3-8 and 13-15. She said passing the bill without that language would highlight the areas where the fail-safe was needed, and another bill could be introduced at that point to address the issue. 9:14:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES agreed with all of the positive aspects of the bill mentioned thus far, but emphasized the importance of letting the public know that the state would be providing only the space, not picking up the tab for running the service. He said his daughter runs a child care facility and the biggest issues she faces are regarding space, utilities, and complying with state law - not her ability to run the center or hire employees. 9:16:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as follows: Page 3, lines 3-8: Delete language Page 3, lines 13-15, following "program.": Delete "Neither the operator nor any personnel employed by or at a child are facility shall be considered to be employees of the state unless a state agency operates the facility under AS 39.90.240(b). REPRESENTATIVE ROSES clarified that the intent of Conceptual Amendment 1 is "to remove the fail-safe for the state taking over the operation." Even without the language, he said, he thinks the bill is a valuable asset for state employees. 9:17:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to Conceptual Amendment 1. He talked about the problem the State of Alaska is having in recruiting and retaining employees under its latest retirement system plan, and he predicted that employees will quite working for the state in areas that would have no child care if Conceptual Amendment were to be adopted. He said he views HB 266 as a first measure in addressing the problem of lack of retention. He said he would encourage the state to provide alternative methods of working for the state, such as telecommuting, because he said Alaska is a state that is mainly rural. 9:19:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that he thinks the proposed legislation, even with the proposed amendment, will still attract and retain employees. He explained that the proportional cost of child care will be proportionally less in a state-owned facility, and he said that will attract workers. 9:20:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the bill was much larger in scope four years ago and has been streamlined. She expressed appreciation for the feedback of the committee, and said she thinks that Representative Roses is correct that the bill, even with Conceptual Amendment 1, will serve to attract employees to work for the State of Alaska. She said she would prefer the bill "have a little bit of movement today," rather than demand the fail-safe provision be left in it. 9:22:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 9:22:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked if the child care offered in the Federal Building offers a substantial savings to the employees with children. 9:22:41 AM MS. CARPENETI indicated that there is a cost savings resulting from the fact that the rent and utilities are paid for by the federal government and the employees are charged on a sliding fee scale, depending on their ability to pay. CHAIR LYNN remarked that he does not know how much child care costs. REPRESENTATIVE ROSES proffered that the cost starts at approximately $215 a week per child. 9:23:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he pays $1,500 a month, total, for his three children's child care. 9:23:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that the adoption of Conceptual Amendment 1 has increased his already existing support of HB 266. 9:24:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report (CS) for HB 266, Version 25-LS0846\E, Wayne/Mischel, 3/17/08, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 266(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|