Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/26/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB13 | |
| HB53 | |
| HB275 | |
| SB67 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 275 | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 26, 2005
1:43 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:43:55 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto; Representative John Coghill;
Representative Mary Kapsner; Representative Peggy Wilson;
Representative Bill Thomas; Senator Ralph Seekins; Cody
Rice, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto; Rynnieva Moss,
Staff, Representative John Coghill; Brian Hove, Staff,
Senator Ralph Seekins; Eddy Jeans, Director, Education
Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development; Stacy Kraly, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Law; Jan Rutherdale, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Law; John MacKinnon, Deputy Director,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; Dick
Cattanach, Executive Director, Associated General
Contractors of Alaska, Anchorage; Jim Jordan, Executive
Director, Alaska State Medical Association (ASMA); Mike
Haugen, Executive Director, Alaska Physicians and Surgeons,
Anchorage; Julie Lucky, Staff, Representative Hawker; Pete
Ecklund, Staff, Representative Kevin Meyer
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Tom Boutin, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue,
Anchorage; Tammy Sandoval, Acting Director, Offices of
Children's Services, Department of Health & Social Services,
Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 13 An Act relating to reimbursement of municipal
bonds for school construction; and providing for
an effective date.
HB 13 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 53 An Act relating to child-in-need-of-aid
proceedings; amending the construction of statutes
pertaining to children in need of aid; relating to
a duty and standard of care for services to
children and families; amending court hearing
procedures to allow public attendance at child-in-
need-of-aid proceedings; establishing a right to a
trial by jury in termination of parental rights
proceedings; reestablishing and relating to state
and local citizens' review panels for certain
child custody matters; amending the duty to
disclose information pertaining to a child in need
of aid; establishing a distribution age for
permanent fund dividends held in trust for a child
committed to the custody of the Department of
Health and Social Services; mandating reporting of
the medication of children in state custody;
prescribing the rights of grandparents related to
child-in- need-of-aid cases and establishing a
grandparent priority for adoption in certain
child- in-need-of-aid cases; modifying adoption
and placement procedures in certain child-in-
need-of-aid cases; amending treatment service
requirements for parents involved in child-in-
need-of-aid proceedings; amending Rules 3 and 18,
Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of Procedure;
and providing for an effective date.
HB 53 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 275 An Act authorizing financing for certain public
transportation projects; giving notice of and
approving the entry into, and the issuance of
revenue obligations that provide participation in,
lease-financing agreements for those
transportation projects; and providing for an
effective date.
CS HB 275 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" and with a new fiscal note
by the Department of Revenue.
CS SB 67(JUD)(efd fld)
An Act relating to claims for personal injury or
wrongful death against health care providers.
CS SB 67 (JUD)(efd fld) was HEARD and HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
1:45:36 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 13
An Act relating to reimbursement of municipal bonds for
school construction; and providing for an effective
date.
Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-LS0062\X,
Mischel, 4/26/05, as the version of the bill before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, SPONSOR, noted that HB 13 was
introduced to "take care of a fast growing community".
Every community in the State has school maintenance and
replacement needs; Mat-Su has needs for school construction
because of the growing student numbers.
HB 13 requests a 70/30 split for those construction costs.
The district would float bonds in hopes of getting approval.
Following a survey, the approval rating for the bonding was
approximately 80%. Since that time, the bill has gotten
"heavier". He stressed that the committee substitute just
adopted incorporates a substantial revision to the original
proposed HB 13. The intent of the original bill was to
build space for children. The bill now includes a major
revision of the funding formula and threatens the substance
of the bill.
Representative Gatto pointed out that a study was added
under the committee substitute. He stressed that SB 36
changed the method of funding from an instructional unit to
use of a formula. Mostly rural school districts suffered
under SB 36. That bill carried a "funding floor" providing
rural schools grant money and an adjustment was made for
those districts.
Representative Gatto challenged the model used for the air-
study. The problem is that study deals with facts, numbers
and observations and cannot be proven right. The study was
flawed. Because of those flaws, the Institute of Social and
Economic Research (ISER) commissioned a second one. The
current version of HB 13 resulted from that study and
propose money be redistributed.
1:53:33 PM
Representative Gatto acknowledged that some districts are
underfunded. HB 13 addresses redistribution of district
funds. He highlighted the districts that would not do well
under HB 13:
· Anchorage school district would loose $24 million
dollars;
· Mat-Su schools district would loose $3 million
dollars, and
· Fairbanks school district would loose $6 million
dollars.
1:55:21 PM
Representative Gatto noted that he spends a lot of time in
the classroom in his district and that he has a strong
association with his school district. He found it
astounding that there are classrooms with 35 students. He
believed that the ISER study would make situations worse.
The Mat-Su district is already very efficient, using 90% of
income for salaries, while other districts give only 65%.
Representative Gatto emphasized his concern that the ISER
study and the proposed legislation not be married as it is
unreasonable and unfair to penalized districts that are
crowded, while sending money to districts that are not. He
believed that crowding is the single most important issue in
the classroom.
1:58:19 PM
Co-Chair Meyer understood that the original bill did have a
70/30 change and that the proposed committee substitute did
include the ISER study. He requested that Co-Chair Chenault
address the changes.
Co-Chair Chenault apologized for "hi jacking" Representative
Gatto's bill. He noted for the record that he understands
the need for the Mat-Su school district and their expanding
population. He referenced the inequities in his own
district and agreed with the inequities resulting from SB
36. He pointed out that his own district suffers huge
concerns with the cut backs that have dramatically affected
the district. He added that his district has a nursing
option only one time per week; there are no kindergarten
aids, and that most of the schools have between 400-500
students. Co-Chair Chenault questioned how the inequity
problems could be fixed statewide.
2:02:17 PM
Co-Chair Chenault agreed that the proposed scenario is not
the right answer and stressed that every study has looked at
cost differentials; they are all are flawed. Everything has
been postponed and the school districts can no longer wait.
2:03:28 PM
Co-Chair Chenault agreed that taking money away from a
school district, forces that district to become more
efficient. Because his district has become so efficient,
they have been penalized. SB 36 is flawed.
2:07:14 PM
Co-Chair Chenault pointed out that the Kenai School District
is composed of both urban and rural schools. The time has
come to fix these problems and HB 13 is the beginning of
that fix. Legislators must come together to determine an
agreement regarding the issues.
2:08:35 PM
Co-Chair Chenault hoped that HB 13 could make it through the
House and Senate and become a vehicle for opening up
discussion on these issues.
2:09:02 PM
Co-Chair Meyer understood that the change made by Co-Chair
Chenault was to Section 3. Co-Chair Chenault said yes.
2:09:17 PM
Co-Chair Chenault acknowledged that the ISER report was
added to the original bill and he thought it would be the
fairest way to make a difference. It would provide a four-
year phase in beginning this year. It would:
· Help the State's budget process,
· Allows districts to determine their costs; and
· Allow time for legislative committees to determine
if the numbers were correct.
Co-Chair Chenault noted support for the original bill,
realizing there are other districts with similar concerns.
He emphasized that these statewide problems must be
addressed.
2:11:03 PM
EDDY JEANS, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, noted that the total
cost of ISER proposed differential would be $82 million
dollars.
2:12:03 PM
Co-Chair Meyer understood that Anchorage would remain the
same for all four years. Mr. Jeans stated that Section 3
would phase in the cost differential recommended by ISER,
over a four-year period. Doing the phase-in, there would be
an annual cost of approximately $20 million dollars.
Anchorage is at zero because it acts as the baseline.
2:12:57 PM
Representative Hawker requested backup for the fiscal impact
to the individual schools districts. Mr. Jeans said it was
not available.
Representative Hawker asked the funding level base for the
$82 million dollars. Mr. Jeans replied it was based on
student allocation, A.S. 4576. Representative Hawker asked
the consequences of increasing that amount. Mr. Jeans
replied it would be approximately $90 million dollars.
2:14:07 PM
Representative Hawker inquired if there would be a hold
harmless for those communities close to the baseline factor
or would there be redistribution. Mr. Jeans stated that if
the cost differentials were implemented, without the fiscal
note being adopted, there would be redistribution based on
the A.S. 4576, prorating the student allocation down to
equal the differentials.
Representative Hawker questioned the cost to the Fairbanks
School district. Mr. Jeans said it would depend if there
were a full implementation or graduated scale.
Representative Hawker asked about the full implementation.
Mr. Jeans did not have that number available. The
redistribution, if held to A.S. 4576 appropriation level,
would have an adverse effect to the Anchorage, Fairbanks,
Mat-Su, Ketchikan and Juneau School Districts.
Representative Hawker stated for the record that he
associated himself with the frustrations recorded by Co-
Chair Chenault, however, proposing an approach as done by
the Chair, troubled him. Solving problems by taking money
from one school district and giving it to another is not a
good model.
2:16:13 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if the State continues to bump-up
the student base allocation, what would happen. Mr. Jeans
explained that the proposal would adjust the existing cost
differential by one quarter of the difference. That would
have an annual cost of approximately $20 million dollars.
The $20 million would be in addition to the $70 million
dollars currently being considered under HB 1 at the
discussed level. The total increase to schools in the
current year if both bills passed, would be approximately
$90 million dollars. All school districts would have
increased funding under that scenario.
2:18:02 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if school funding was increased next
year by $70 million dollars would all school districts
benefit. Mr. Jeans explained that the manner in which the
bill is currently structured, the adjustment would be built
into the base next year. If the Legislature elected to
increase the base student allocation, that would provide
additional resources to all school districts across the
State.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that SB 155 includes the 70/30
program. Mr. Jeans advised that SB 155 is a grant program.
Under the Department's school construction grant program,
there is a participating share. For the larger communities,
their local match is 30%. Similar rules apply, however, the
difference is, under SB 155, the State is providing for the
grant to 70%; under the debt reimbursement program, the
voters would need to approve the project for the bonds
issued.
2:21:32 PM
In response to a query by Representative Kelly, Mr. Jeans
understood that Kenai would experience a small drop.
2:22:42 PM
Representative Joule asked why the original bill language
had been deleted allowing for the Rural Education Attendance
Area (REAA) bonding. Co-Chair Chenault did not know.
Representative Joule voiced his concern with SB 155 and
major maintenance with comparison to HB 13, which allows
districts some construction costs. The contingency language
allows the REAA's to address new school construction. He
said he would address those concerns with an amendment.
2:25:03 PM
Representative Hawker raised concerns regarding the basis of
the numbers. He noted that the Legislative Budget Committee
(LBA) Committee had contracted for the air report. He
pointed out that he was disappointed with the flaws in the
ISER evaluation process. To determine the cost
differentials, ISER made a judgmental determination. The
reason that a teacher would accept a job in certain
locations is #5 on the teacher's lists.
Representative Gatto remembered the study, pointing out that
salaries were not #1. Representative Hawker pointed out
that was one of the driving factors in the ISER study. He
indicated he was troubled with the proposed numbers. He
believed that the closer the decision was to the
Legislature, the better that decision could be, looking for
equivalency to level the playing field.
2:30:35 PM
Representative Croft commented on the process that occurred
with passage of SB 36 seven years ago. He noted that he was
the only legislator from Anchorage or Fairbanks that voted
against SB 36. That bill, the education-funding formula,
was based on false information. The legislation concluded
that it cost no more to put a teacher in rural Alaska than
it does in Anchorage. That was and still is false. There
were other falsehoods in the premise of SB 36. The ISER
study asked the correct questions by asking how to get a
teacher out to the village area. The ISER puts the State
closer to the truth regarding those costs. To pretend that
it does not does cost more to have a teacher in rural Alaska
is not true and does an injustice to many of the students of
the State.
2:33:53 PM
Representative Hawker added that the ISER study based its
conclusions on questions. It was acknowledged in the ISER
report that they did not address whether additional funding
would result in the districts having additional personnel.
2:34:57 PM
Representative Kelly was concerned with what was happening
in Co-Chair Chenault's district but wanted to know that the
legislation would "make sense" regarding cost differentials.
2:37:36 PM
Representative Joule stated that he would have an amendment
regarding the contingent effect of the needed conforming
sections for appropriations in the REAA's.
HB 13 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
AT EASE: 2:39:22 PM
RECONVENE: 2:43:45 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
An Act relating to child-in-need-of-aid proceedings;
amending the construction of statutes pertaining to
children in need of aid; relating to a duty and
standard of care for services to children and families;
amending court hearing procedures to allow public
attendance at child-in-need-of-aid proceedings;
establishing a right to a trial by jury in termination
of parental rights proceedings; reestablishing and
relating to state and local citizens' review panels for
certain child custody matters; amending the duty to
disclose information pertaining to a child in need of
aid; establishing a distribution age for permanent fund
dividends held in trust for a child committed to the
custody of the Department of Health and Social
Services; mandating reporting of the medication of
children in state custody; prescribing the rights of
grandparents related to child-in- need-of-aid cases and
establishing a grandparent priority for adoption in
certain child- in-need-of-aid cases; modifying adoption
and placement procedures in certain child-in- need-of-
aid cases; amending treatment service requirements for
parents involved in child-in-need-of-aid proceedings;
amending Rules 3 and 18, Alaska Child in Need of Aid
Rules of Procedure; and providing for an effective
date.
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, which
would insert "court records" on Page 1, Line 3. (Copy on
File). Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, noted
that the amendment added language to the title. It was
important that the title states concise. The court records
were modified in Sections 18 & 19.
2:45:23 PM
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
2:45:44 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Representative Croft explained the amendment would insert
language on Page 5, "to the fullest extent consistent with
the child's best interests". (Copy on File). Ms. Moss
concurred, pointed out that also had been a concern for the
Department of Law.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted.
2:47:05 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss explained that the amendment would add language on
Page 7, Line 7, "or whose safety or welfare may be
endangered by public release of such information". (Copy on
File).
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #3 was adopted.
2:47:36 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4, which
would delete all material on Page 7, Lines 14-20. (Copy on
File). Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
JULIE LUCKY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, explained the
amendment, recommending a policy call by the Committee to
determine whether child-in-need-of-aid hearings should be
open to the public. She resisted sharing that information
and recommended an opinion from Department of Law.
2:51:30 PM
Representative Croft questioned whether public disclosure
could be better. He asked if confidentiality protects
children. Ms. Lucky shared her opinion regarding how it
affects children at risk.
2:52:40 PM
Representative Hawker noted that the crux of the amendment
addresses the language of the bill, making the public
hearing process open to the public and limiting
confidentiality. The proposed language provides strong
"affirmative" duty that the public may not disclose any
information from a hearing by making it a misdemeanor crime
to violate that. He thought that could be a bright line for
an innocent child.
2:54:35 PM
Ms. Moss noted that the Sponsor was in opposition to
Amendment #4.
2:55:51 PM
JAN RUTHERDALE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, related her experience in drafting the bill during the
task force. A lot of time was spent on balancing the
privacy rights of the child with the benefits of opening the
hearings. It was determined that the provision of
Subsection (F), Section 10 was important and the amendment
proposes to modify that section. The protections of not
disclosing the child's name, plus requiring the court to
notify everyone. Subject to the court's sanctions, that
would violate the order.
Ms. Rutherdale addressed questions about the studies. She
said the system is broken with so little funding going into
that system and by opening the hearings, would be one way to
obtain necessary changes. Several states have opened up
hearings without problems. There are already restrictions
in place.
3:00:03 PM
JOSH FINK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PUBLIC ADVOCATE,
OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY (OPA), ANCHORAGE, concurred with
comments made by Ms. Moss that they support the current
language in the bill. He related history of public
disclosure and the importance of that. He voiced concern
with Amendment #4, indicating that public discussion is
important with the need for "side boards".
3:02:02 PM
Representative Croft referred to the last line of that
section. He asked if a judge had experience in a case with
a reporter who disclosed information they should not have,
then shouldn't they retain the power to exclude that
reporter from subsequent hearings.
3:03:00 PM
Ms. Rutherdale agreed with Representative Croft's
interpretation that the court has the power to close a
hearing.
Ms. Moss inquired if Representative Croft had recommended
any language. Representative Croft recommended deleting "in
the case".
3:04:12 PM
Representative Hawker WITHDREW Amendment #4.
3:04:35 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #5, which
would add a conceptual amendment on Page 11 to Section 16.
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. Ms. Moss indicated that the
sponsor would have no problem with that language.
3:05:00 PM
Ms. Lucky spoke to the duty of the Department to notify
adult family members while termination is happening. There
are many families where there is a cycle of abuse. The
amendment would not preclude the Department from looking at
a family member that might have had trouble in the past.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #5 was adopted.
3:06:11 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #6. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
3:06:49 PM
Ms. Rutherdale explained that she had proposed the language.
The language clarifies that the parties including the
parents have access to agency records. Currently, a person
would have to obtain a court order. She spoke to that
limitation.
Representative Kelly asked if that had fallen out of favor.
Ms. Rutherdale replied that the language has fallen out of
favor, but the amendment has not.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #6 was adopted.
3:07:53 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #7. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Rutherdale noted that she had recommended the amendment,
which would delete language on Page 5, Line 24, "Guardian ad
litem appointed by the Court" and insert "a guardian ad
litem appointed by the court".
Representative Croft pointed out the need for renumbering.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #7 was adopted.
3:09:41 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #8. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Rutherdale explained the amendment provides
clarification that caregivers include a parent or guardian
of the child. The language covers situations in which the
caregiver should be warned regarding information. Often
they have no connection with OCS. The proposed language
covers licensing and day care agencies.
Co-Chair Chenault asked about warning day care providers and
if the language would apply to only licensed day care
centers. Ms. Rutherdale replied it applies to licensing
agencies and to any caregiver of a child. If the person has
control, they need to be warned to protect that child.
Co-Chair Chenault mentioned a felon doing day care in his
area and inquired if the law would apply to that person.
Ms. Rutherdale advised that OCS would need to know about it
in order to provide the warning and would affect anything
regarding the child's safety.
Co-Chair Chenault explained that the man was accused of
kidnapping 15-years ago and currently, he is providing day
care out of his home. He cares for only four children,
under the number to require a license. Ms. Rutherdale
responded it would cover that situation.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #8 was adopted.
3:14:26 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #9. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss indicated that the amendment addresses a concern
regarding multiple children with multiple fathers. She
added that grammatically the sentence needs to delete the
second comma.
Representative Hawker MOVED a friendly amendment to delete
the second comma. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #9
was amended.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, amended Amendment #9 was adopted.
3:15:43 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #10. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss explained that the amendment addresses an
oversight. Additionally, the word "member" was left out in
the insert of Section ©.
Representative Hawker MOVED to AMEND Amendment #10 with the
addition of that language. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
amended.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, amended Amendment #10 was adopted.
3:16:56 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #11. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Rutherdale explained that the amendment would insert
language on Page 20, Line 29, following "child", "under AS
47.10.088(i) or under (e) of this section". The language
clarifies that the paragraph refers to both sections,
identifying adoptive placement homes.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #11 was adopted.
3:18:06 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #12. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss advised that Amendment #12 would delete language on
Page 21, Line 23: "and shall be closed to the public",
because the purpose of the bill is to open proceedings to
the public.
Representative Croft asked if they were closed to the public
before. Ms. Moss said no and that the language had been
taken from other federal statutes.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #12 was adopted.
3:19:06 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #13. Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss explained that the original language mandated audio
and videotaping. That could create a burden for OCS and a
fiscal note if for some reason the federal dollars
disappear. The requested language would be more permissive.
TAMMY SANDOVAL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ACTING
DIRECTOR, OFFICES OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES (OCS), DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES, ANCHORAGE, stated that it was
best practice to have children audio and video taped
whenever possible, but she realized that they do not hold
the purse strings to mandate that.
3:20:08 PM
Representative Croft said that under current law, it is
permissive. Amendment #13 establishes a tiered system for
physical abuse. Ms. Moss stated that they did not add the
"shall" on Line 8.
Representative Croft asked why that was the best practice in
certain cases not severe or sexual. He asked why, in the
sexual abuse cases would they want to create a "shall"
standard. Ms. Moss concurred and agreed that would create a
check and balance.
Representative Croft asked if an implication was created
when using "may" for severe physical abuse and "shall" for
sexual abuse.
STACY KRALY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
agreed with the premise, however, understood that "shall" on
Line 8, creates a large fiscal impact on OCS, because the
mandatory nature creates an obligation.
Ms. Sandoval added that adding "shall" on Line 8 relieved
their office. She agreed, however, it was determined that
having the burden of that language to transport a child or
interviewer would create difficult costs. She mentioned the
best practice issue could be dealt with internally.
3:25:17 PM
Representative Croft pointed out that the mentioned
situation could not be feasible and thought that it could
result in trauma to the child. He maintained that it was
"best practices" to audio and videotape victims,
particularly sexually violated victims and that it should be
required. He suggested that on Lines 5 & 6 of the
amendment, deleting language "alleging severe physical abuse
by a parent or caregiver". He preferred that all reports of
harm be taped but was comfortable with it being those
involved with sexual abuse.
Ms. Kraly agreed with the "unless" phrase. She reiterated
that best practice requires a fiscal note. She requested
time to determine if the change would work with a 1985
Supreme Court case decision, regarding requirements that a
police officer tape interviews with suspects.
Representative Croft MOVED to AMEND Amendment #13, Lines 5 &
6, deleting language "alleging severe physical abuse by a
parent or caregiver". Additionally, Lines 8 & 9, deleting
the phrase, "except that an interview of a child may not be
videotaped if" and insert "unless". There being NO
OBJECTION to the amended language, it was incorporated. Ms.
Moss indicated that the sponsor would support that change.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION, to the amendment.
There being NO further OBJECTIONS, amended Amendment #13 was
adopted.
3:30:08 PM
th
Representative Foster mentioned that 15 years ago, the 9
Circuit Court made a judgment, which was recently overturned
because the right of the accused was unable to cross-examine
the tape. He did not know the value of the amendment.
Ms. Rutherdale explained that the purpose of the taping is
to guarantee that there is accurate information coming from
the child. Generally, it is not used in court.
3:32:00 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #14. Co-Chair
Chenault OBJECTED.
Ms. Moss stated that Amendment #14 defines child advocacy
centers and that the State directs OCS to utilize them when
available.
Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #14 was adopted.
Representative Kelly pointed out an extra common on Line 8.
He MOVED to AMEND Amendment #8 by deleting the comma after
"neglect". There being NO OBJECTION, it was amended.
There being NO further OBJECTION, amended Amendment #8 was
adopted.
3:34:09 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired the change to the fiscal note.
3:35:16 PM
Ms. Moss responded that she could not provide an accurate
number at this time, noting possible lost federal funds.
OPA and the Public Defenders Office have reduced their notes
by approximately 66%. Ms. Moss pointed out the substantial
increase for budgeting of front line workers.
3:36:41 PM
Representative Hawker voiced concern passing a bill out of
the House Finance Committee that does not indicate true
fiscal costs.
3:37:43 PM
Representative Croft referenced Section 38, Page 21, the
panel open to the public. He voiced concern with the
confidentiality in Section 41 that the members and staff may
not disclose. He thought that they ought to have similar
obligations as those listed in Section 10. Ms. Moss
understood that was already covered.
Ms. Kraly pointed out that Section 41 contains a
confidentiality provision that has a restriction regarding
what can be divulged. Representative Croft read Section 41,
"The members and staff of the State panel do not discuss".
Ms. Kraly agreed with Representative Croft's interpretation
that if the meetings were going to be open, there should be
a similar limitation to the individuals that attend.
3:40:35 PM
Ms. Moss said she was under the understood that
confidentiality would be created for any child-in-need-of-
aid proceedings. Representative Croft requested
reconsideration on Page 7, regarding a person attending a
hearing. Ms. Rutherdale advised that Page 7 does not apply
to the Citizen's Review Panel.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #15a on Page
22, Line 15, "a person attending a hearing of the State
panel and" before "members". Ms. Moss indicated that would
be okay.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #15a was adopted.
3:42:27 PM
Ms. Sandoval reported on the reworking of the fiscal notes
and removing the jury trial. The Division has reduced the
notes to just over $200 thousand dollars.
3:43:28 PM
Co-Chair Meyer stated that HB 53 would be HELD in Committee
for further consideration of the fiscal notes.
AT EASE: 3:44:10 PM
RECONVENE: 3:52:31 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 275
An Act authorizing financing for certain public
transportation projects; giving notice of and approving
the entry into, and the issuance of revenue obligations
that provide participation in, lease-financing
agreements for those transportation projects; and
providing for an effective date.
3:53:19 PM
*Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-LS0902\G,
Utermohle, 4/26/05, as the version of the bill before the
Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
PETE ECKLUND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, explained
the changes. The original version of the bill allocated
$115 million dollars for statewide projects. Version G
allocates $183 million dollars for projects. He referenced
the handout: "Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEE)
Project List". (Copy on File). He pointed out that many of
the projects relate to the gas pipeline. The bond package
could be paid back over 16 years, totaling $16.1 million
dollars per year, for a total of $257 million dollars.
3:55:56 PM
Co-Chair Meyer related the bill's history and concern with
using the bonds. He observed that the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities and the Alaska General
Contractors would rather use a different funding source.
3:57:38 PM
JOHN MACKINNON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, testified that GARVEE
bonds "do not grow the program". He pointed out that
federal funding for the past 18 months has been a roller
coaster ride and the Department is anxiously awaiting
reauthorization. GARVEE's are a great mechanism when there
is a growing program. Paying out interest earnings shrinks
the program, ending up with a bulge in construction
activity. He maintained that using the GARVEE bonds
concerns the Department.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that some of the proposed roads
were ones supported by the Governor, noting that passage of
the bill would allow acceleration for those projects. Mr.
MacKinnon agreed.
3:59:58 PM
Representative Hawker recognized the reticence of using the
proposed vehicle. He asked if the bill were passed, would
that be a single placement or would it be placed into
components. He asked the schedule of the bond placements.
Mr. MacKinnon did not know, indicating it would be the call
of the Governor.
4:01:24 PM
Mr. Ecklund countered in support of the GARVEE's pointing
out that in the last two years, heavy construction inflation
has been growing at the rate of 50% per year. By moving
some projects up and doing them now, there could be an
inflationary cost savings. The interest earnings on the
bonds could be used to offset the State match.
4:02:19 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked what would happen with left over
money from the allocations. Mr. MacKinnon replied that
rarely is there money left over on a project and the bill
provides the ability to allocate for other projects.
Co-Chair Chenault commented on "old" money still waiting for
the General Obligation (GO) allocation. Mr. MacKinnon
understood that the policy was for those monies to stay on
the project list. That money could be reallocated. If a
GARVEE package results, the Department will have to use
"discipline". If projects grow and exceed the available
number, it is important that the Department remains within
budget, otherwise it could drain other projects.
4:04:49 PM
Representative Holm was concerned that projects would be
built with no maintenance funding placed in. He requested
an analysis for the projects and asked to what extent the
State studies programs. Mr. MacKinnon acknowledged that the
Department is aware of the increased maintenance costs,
however, those are not considerations when the project is
being built. Representative Holm reiterated his concern
that when projects are placed on the STIP, they come without
a maintenance factor built in. He maintained that it is
important to look at planning and if there would be a
significant impact.
4:07:41 PM
Mr. MacKinnon pointed out that it would be good to have
information regarding the increase in annual maintenance
costs. Representative Holm agreed.
Representative Hawker asked if there could be a penalty for
early financing or payoff if another preferred mechanism was
chosen instead of the GARVEE. Mr. McKinnon did not know but
indicated that the State could substitute the federal screen
for other sources.
4:09:40 PM
DICK CATTANACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE, clarified that his board
concurred with the Department's position against using the
GARVEE bonds. The use of the bonds would not add to the
highway program but rather would move projects from the
future to the present. The bonds will not add project
money, with the exception that building now might be cheaper
than building in four years because of inflation. Issuing
GARVEE bonds means paying interest and that interest must
come from the $6 billion dollar allocation. The interest
costs might offset the inflation and the State will end up
with a program no bigger. He emphasized that using the
GARVEE bonds creates an artificial period of time.
4:12:07 PM
Mr. Cattanach thought that the $200 billion dollar number
was exorbitant. The projects would total $500 million
dollars for two years and contractors would ramp up for
that. Paying off the bonds, it would be decreased. With
the bonds issued last year and the current ones, would
result in a reduced program of $25-$30 million dollars.
Instead of $4 million future dollars, the end result will be
$375 million dollars for the next 14 years. He stressed
that if using GARVEE bonds, the projects must be selected
carefully. He reiterated his opposition to using the bonds.
4:14:37 PM
Co-Chair Meyer commented that finding roads for the gas
pipeline is important. He pointed out that some of those
roads are on that list and there is a need to find
geographical balance.
4:15:16 PM
Mr. Cattenaugh argued against using the GARVEE bonds. Co-
Chair Meyer acknowledged that his first choice was to use
the surplus Amerada Hess general fund money.
4:16:05 PM
Representative Hawker asked how Mr. Cattenaugh would counsel
the Committee for road maintenance funding for sustainable
planning. Mr. Cattenaugh responded that the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Projects (STIP) process works,
acknowledged, it is flawed. The STIP is currently the best
process that the State has. He did not know how to
otherwise respond to Representative Hawker, reiterating
concern that GARVEE bonds are not a good option; the
projects would be on top of a highway program already
costing $400 million dollars.
4:18:16 PM
Representative Hawker commented that he really did not
understand the STIP process and asked what would happen if
the State did have an alternative funding source and if the
STIP money was lost or available for rescheduling. Mr.
Cattenaugh believed it would be available as it was
authorized for Alaska.
4:19:52 PM
TOM BOUTIN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ANCHORAGE, responded to
Representative Hawker's query, a question for the Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities. He noted that in
2003, the State did issue GARVEE bonds. He understood that
for each GARVEE qualified project, the State goes to the
federal government to obtain an okay for that project.
Therefore, a project that qualifies for GARVEE, reduces what
otherwise would be federal receipts. If a project were
funded through some alternative funding, the State would not
be giving up federal money.
4:22:12 PM
Mr. MacKinnon agreed and that it could free up that much
money. Representative Hawker was hopeful to find an
alternative mechanism to the GARVEE process that would not
compromise funding down stream.
4:23:15 PM
Mr. Boutin added that typically the bonds could be issued so
that there could be an early call provision. With the call
premium, there would be an issuance cost and the bond
proceeds would not be invested with high rates on the bonds.
There would be costs in issuing that debt and not spending
the money. Using the GARVEE bonds, there will be a credit
rating concern.
4:24:24 PM
Representative Holm asked if the money would be lost if the
projects were not completed and wondered how many of the
projects would be "time trapped" under the STIP process.
Mr. MacKinnon did not know. He pointed out that the list
provided by Co-Chair Meyer's staff included a number of
those projects.
Representative Holm commented on the problems associated
with the STIP process in those areas of the State that are
adversely affected by projects not funded. He was concerned
with supporting the GARVEE bonding.
4:26:52 PM
Representative Kelly requested clarification if the STIP
list would use GARVEE bond funding. Mr. MacKinnon said
there would be a $100 million dollars total in that list.
4:28:28 PM
Representative Weyhrauch noted in his area, there is a
backlog of projects and continues to be a stagnant decline.
He thought the State should foster more private development.
He applauded the Chairman for "looking for every dime he
can", reiterating that his area is "hurting". There is high
unemployment with access needs for resources and roads.
Representative Weyhrauch referenced the list, requesting it
to be amended to include a road extension on Glacier
Highway. He emphasized that SE Alaska supports the gas
pipeline. He acknowledged that S.E. Alaska is a different
world and urged that member's support addressing the needs
in S.E. Alaska, too.
Mr. Cattenaugh stated that the general contractors are not
opposed to any projects; however, warned about moving the
proposed dollars forward. He warned that the State would
not gain anything that way. The Alaska General Contractors
(AGC) will support another source of funding. Alaska is the
only State in the nation that does not have a State highway
program. In most states that program equals or exceeds the
amount received by the federal government. There are over
$10 billion dollars worth of needed projects. He encouraged
the Legislature re-think outside federal highway dollars.
4:32:52 PM
Co-Chair Meyer indicated that he would like to find another
source of money for these roads; however, it is not
available. He agreed that there are other sources but to
date, they have not been explored. In order to address the
priority roads, GARVEE bonds are the only thing available.
Representative Weyhrauch maintained the real need is for
fiscal planning.
Representative Hawker interjected that last year, if the
House had been successful with the Senate in adopting the
Percent of Market Value (POMV), a constitutional spending
limit, and HB 298, then the State would be enjoying the
beginning of fiscal planning.
4:35:04 PM
Representative Weyhrauch MOVED to AMEND on Page 3, Line 3,
inserting, "Glacier Highway road extension - $10 million
dollars - Section (23)".
Co-Chair Meyer asked if that was on the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities' list. Mr. MacKinnon
replied that project could fit into the list. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was added.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 275 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 275 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a new fiscal note by the Department
of Revenue.
4:38:12 PM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 67(JUD)(efd fld)
An Act relating to claims for personal injury or
wrongful death against health care providers.
BRIAN HOVE, STAFF, SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, said that SB 67
would amend AS 09.55 by adding a new section (.549). The
section would place a two-step limit on non-economic damage
awards where health care providers render services. In
cases involving wrongful death or severe permanent physical
impairment, damages would be limited to $400 thousand
dollars, while all other cases would be limited to $250
thousand dollars.
The bill intends to alleviate a growing, two-pronged, crisis
in Alaska's health care industry, the dearth of liability
insurance carriers and the declining number of practicing
physicians. Liability insurance is necessary. Health care
providers understand the necessity of liability coverage.
Mr. Hove stated that in today's world, commercial enterprise
must have coverage. Medical malpractice insurance companies
have found Alaska uneconomic and have left that market,
which has created uncertainty and opened the door to higher
rates across the board.
Mr. Hove noted every Alaskan needing medical care pays the
added costs of doing business, however, there are more
serious concerns with a critical shortage of physicians.
Alaska ranks near the bottom in the number of physicians per
capita nationwide and that over half of Alaska's physicians
exceed the age of 50. Additionally, it is continually more
difficult to recruit new entries when other states have
capped non-economic damages at or near $250 thousand
dollars. It is important to note that SB 67 does not alter
awards for quantifiable damages such as lost wages and
medical expenses. Furthermore, it is not intended to be a
solution to the entire range of issues facing the health
care industry today. However, it does provide a step in the
right direction in terms of stabilizing the medical
insurance market in Alaska and boosting efforts to attract
the next generation of physicians.
4:39:59 PM
JIM JORDAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA STATE MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION (ASMA), ANCHORAGE, testified in support of the
legislation. He mentioned the national shortage of
physicians. The Association of American Medical Colleges
has issued an alert that it is time to ramp up for the
medical shortage. He emphasized that the shortage is
particularly acute in the Western states.
Mr. Jordan maintained that the State of Alaska cannot afford
the loss of another physician. There are a variety of
reasons that physicians are being lost. He felt that SB 67
could aid in recruitment of new doctors. Mr. Jordan pointed
out that two of the four insurance companies that have left
the State are still doing business in Idaho. Alaska exceeds
Idaho's [medical insurance] rates by 50 percent. He urged
support for SB 67.
4:47:57 PM
Representative Foster referenced the materials in the file
which indicates that the number of doctors across the
country have tripled since 1989.
4:51:20 PM
Mr. Jordan questioned which report was being referenced.
Representative Foster restated that the report indicates the
tripling per capita. Mr. Jordan advised that the numbers
being discussed are the total number of physicians licensed
in the State. It is important to take into consideration
how many doctors are actually practicing. The national
organization of State Medical Boards indicates that 60% of
physicians have licenses in multiple states. The directory
is the best attempt to determine who the practicing
physicians are.
4:53:39 PM
Representative Weyhrauch questioned if 37 doctors had
dropped out of practice last year. Mr. Jordan said yes,
primarily due to the number of deployed military positions.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if they had purchased
malpractice insurance. Mr. Jordan believed that the retired
military had been covered under the federal torte act.
4:56:05 PM
MIKE HAUGEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PHYSICIANS AND
SURGEONS, ANCHORAGE, testified in support of the
legislation. Approximately, 60% of the Alaskan voters favor
placing a cap on non-economic damages in medical non-
practice cases. He added that 72% of the voters believe
that health care providers are doing a good job preventing
medical errors and promoting public safety. Nearly half of
the voters feel that some physicians have stopped providing
some complex or high-risk medical services to protect
themselves from the lawsuits. Voters fear that the medical
non-practice component will impact them directly.
th
Mr. Haugen pointed out that Alaska ranks 46 out of 50
states in the number of per capita doctors. Those states
that have enacted meaningful, non-economic damage caps have
seen an average of about 12% more doctors per capita.
Mr. Haugen argued that the concern is one of access. With
only two insurance carriers left in the State, Alaska cannot
afford to loose one of them. There are enough senior
doctors in the State deciding to retire from practice. It
is very difficult to attract new doctors into Alaska and
with just two carriers, it will not be getting any easier.
He stated that SB 67 would help address these concerns.
4:59:16 PM
Representative Holm asked if it was in the best interest for
Alaskans to have young or old doctors. Mr. Haugen responded
that would depend on the qualifications and ability of that
physician. The doctors coming out of medical school are
exposed to the most current technology and theory while the
older physicians have experience. The fact is that Alaska
needs to attract more doctors of all ages.
Representative Holm pointed out that it is extremely
difficult to attract specialists in Fairbanks. He was
concerned that the legislation might attract only young
doctors.
Representative Holm referenced an article regarding a
liability insurance analysis undertaken by a group, which
ranks Alaska between 33%-36% nationwide. Alaska ranks very
low for doing business and recommended that torte reform be
implemented.
5:02:58 PM
Mr. Haugen explained that the proposed legislation was not
the ultimate solution to the problem. He thought that
eventually, the Legislature could create a better fix to the
problem.
5:04:59 PM
Representative Holm advised that there is no guarantee from
any insurance company that they will stay in Alaska either
with or without passage of the legislation.
CS SB 67(JUD)(efd fld) was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|