Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/24/2001 02:24 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 24, 2001
2:24 P.M.
TAPE HFC 01 - 93, Side A
TAPE HFC 01 - 93, Side B
TAPE HFC 01 - 94, Side A
TAPE HFC 01 - 94, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:24 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative John Davies
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Richard Foster
Representative John Harris
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Ken Lancaster
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Gretchen Guess; Representative Gary Stevens;
Senator Lyda Green; Senator Robin Taylor; Senator Alan
Austerman; Representative Charles Chenault; Dean Guaneli,
Chief Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Hans
Neidig, Staff, Senator Lyda Green; Eddy Jeans, Manager,
School Finance and Facilities Section, Department of
Education & Early Development; Matt Felix, NCADD, Juneau;
Carl Rose, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, Juneau; Elmer Lindstrom, Special Assistant to
Commissioner Perdue, Department of Health and Social
Services; Denny Dewitt, Staff, Representative Eldon Mulder.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Mary Marshburn, Division of Motor Vehicles, Anchorage; Dr.
Ed MacLean, Assistant Superintendent for the Kenai Borough
School District, Anchorage; Chuck Hosack, Deputy Director,
Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration,
Anchorage; Blaire McCune, Public Defender, Department of
Administration; Ernie Hall, Anchorage; Patrick Hickey, Kenai
Peninsula Borough School District, Kenai; Chuck Hosack,
Deputy Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 105 An Act relating to the base student allocation
used in the formula for state funding of public
education; and providing for an effective date.
CS HB 105 (EDU) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a House
Finance Letter of Intent and a fiscal note #1 by
Department of Education & Early Development dated
4/23/01.
HB 179 An Act relating to underage drinking and drug
offenses; and providing for an effective date.
CS HB 179 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes
by #2 Department of Corrections, #5 Department of
Health & Social Services, #6 Department of Health
& Social Services, and new fiscal notes by the
Department of Law, the Alaska Court System,
Department of Health & Social Services, and
Department of Administration.
HB 250 An Act relating to missions and measures to be
applied to certain expenditures by the executive
branch of state government and the University of
Alaska from the state operating budget for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2002; and providing
for an effective date.
CS HB 250 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal
note by the House Finance Committee.
CS SB 133(HES) am
An Act relating to a two-year transition for
implementation of the public high school
competency examination and to establishing a
secondary student competency examination as a high
school graduation requirement; and providing for
an effective date.
HCS CS SB 133 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
note #1 by Department of Education & Early
Development dated 3/20/01.
HCR 14 Suspending Rules 24(c), 35, 41(b), and 42(e),
Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature,
concerning Senate Bill No. 133, relating to high
school competency testing.
HCR 14 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note
#1 by the House HESS Committee dated 4/12/01.
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
An Act relating to the base student allocation used in
the formula for state funding of public education; and
providing for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY STEVENS noted that Alaska's Public
Education Funding Formula is based on a specific dollar
amount per student. The base student allocation was
established in 1998 as $3,940 per student and has not been
increased since that time. HB 105 increases the allocation
by $101 dollars.
Representative Stevens advised that during the past 14
years, inflation has had an impact on public school funding
and that the purchasing power of the general fund education
dollars have slowly eroded over time. Although, the State's
contribution to the 53 school districts has increased 54%
since FY88, the effect of annual inflation, as well as an
increase in student enrollment, has negated the growth and
the purchasing power of the student dollar has been
diminished.
Representative Stevens pointed out that the public school
foundation program has lost 13.9% on a student dollar basis
since FY88 due to the cumulative effect of annual inflation.
HB 105 proposes to recoup some of that loss.
Representative Stevens commented that supporters of a world
class educational system for Alaska must agree that, while
at the same time inflation is eroding the purchasing power
for the student dollar, Alaskans are asking public schools
to take on more and more responsibility in three areas.
· First, many parents today regularly drop off
their children at school early in the morning
and pick them up after work. School
personnel today provide not only classroom
instruction for these students but also offer
the emotional, social, and moral support
needed before and after regular school hours
at a level unheard of a generation ago. The
increased time that a child spends at school
increases the responsibility of the local
teachers and administrators.
· Secondly, as performance standards and the
corresponding assessments become a reality
and are accepted as commonplace, each
neighborhood school and classroom will be
held more accountable for student learning.
Children who need extra innovative
instruction to master these standards will be
identified and teachers will offer
appropriate remedial learning opportunities.
The added tutoring sessions necessary for
some students may be offered within the
regular school day or during a Saturday or
summer school program. The added
accountability is a step in the right
direction, but it does have substantial
impact on the financial resources of our
local school districts.
· Lastly, classroom teachers are on the
frontline with the children and must be held
accountable for their learning and
performance. Alaska's young people deserve
to be taught by the very best teachers
possible. Alaska's school districts are
faced with the responsibility of recruiting
and retaining a highly qualified work force
at a time when teachers are in short supply,
which is not an easy task. The State has an
obligation to provide adequate funding to all
public school districts so that all school
districts can hire and retain quality
teachers
Representative Stevens summarized that public education is
faced with the unenviable position-assuming greater
responsibility with a reduction in the purchasing power of
the student dollar. Alaska cannot continue to ask the 53
school districts to meet all these additional
responsibilities with a dwindling budget, therefore,
additional funding is a necessity. Representative Stevens
stressed that the increase of $101 dollars per student
provided the legislation would assist local school districts
to meet, and hopefully exceed, the public's expectations and
demands.
Representative Davies asked if the 30% inflation costs would
be covered. Representative Stevens stated that it would not
and that it would be substantially less.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked if the 30% inflation increase had
been in the last ten years. Representative Stevens replied
that the Anchorage School district had calculated it. He
added that there is no way to determine if that was the
correct amount, but emphasized that it was the amount that
had been spent.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked how many schools were receiving
classroom instruction waivers so that they could put that
money into administrative costs. Representative Stevens
recommended that the Department answer that question.
Representative Whitaker asked if the 30% inflation factor
had included the increase in contributions from local
property taxes. Representative Stevens did not know. He
reiterated that the figures had been provided from the
Anchorage School district.
Representative Hudson inquired when the last time the
foundation formula increased. Representative Stevens
replied that since 1988, it has increased by 54%.
Representative Davies asked the funding need in various
school districts. Representative Stevens replied that there
exists a tremendous problem in the school districts. He
claimed that it would be a disservice to the entire
profession. Putting money into the foundation formula also
raises the cap. The cap is the amount that the local
districts contribute of their own money for schools. He
noted that districts are finding ways to circumvent the cap.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that not all schools make local
contributions. Representative Stevens acknowledged that was
true and that some districts receive money for funding
outside State contributions.
Representative Harris pointed out that the original number
had been reduced and referenced other legislation regarding
the costs of running schools. If that legislation becomes a
reality, next year education would be funded at a higher
level. Representative Harris noted that he supported that
legislation. Representative Stevens stressed that it is
essential that a study be undertaken as additional costs are
pending.
Representative Davies believed that it would be easier to
get an increase if the base had been built up.
Representative Stevens responded that whatever help could be
offered this year would be appreciated.
EDDY JEANS, MANAGER, SCHOOL FINANCE AND FACILITIES SECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & EARLY DEVELOPMENT, clarified that
inflation has increased 30% over the past ten years. The
Legislature has increased the base allocation by only 5%.
The formula self adjusts for the property tax increases.
The minimum level for the base student allocation has been
determined and the minimum level of revenue that districts
need to support education. That money is divided between
pots of federal, local and state dollars. As property
values increase, if the base student enrollment is held
constant, then the State general fund requirement would
decrease. The base allocation to school districts over a
ten-year period has only increased by 10%.
Representative Whitaker asked if there has been a one to one
reduction in the ratio. Mr. Jeans replied that was close.
Vice-Chair Bunde asked how many school districts were
currently requesting money for waivers. Mr. Jeans replied
that was the provision which required school districts to
spend 70% of their fund on instruction. The districts may
apply for a waiver from the State Board of Education if
there are circumstances beyond their control. In FY2001,
there were 24 school districts applying for waivers. In
many of those school districts, there is a dispersed and
small population so many sites are being operated with high
operational costs. He noted that all 24 waivers were
granted.
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned how many single site schools
with high overhead there were and how many schools districts
that makes no local contribution. Mr. Jeans replied that
there are 19 Regional Education Attendance Areas (REAAs)
that do not make a local tax appropriation to education.
The Administration's position has always been that impact
aid is in lieu of property taxes. Those lands have been
moved by federal action from the tax rules. Even if those
lands moved into boroughs, most of them are still non-
taxable and would be used to offset the general fund
requirements. In response to Vice-Chair Bunde comment, Mr.
Jeans advised that those communities do not make a local tax
contribution for their schools through an organized
government. They make it through the federal government.
Representative Davies asked what the high operational costs
are. Mr. Jeans explained that those costs relate to
economies of scale. Some school districts, serve many
communities. There is one community that serves over 100
students. They do not have the population to spread the
operational costs over. He noted that fuel costs have
increased over the past year.
Representative Whitaker referenced federal impact dollars.
Mr. Jeans explained that they are called federal impact aid
dollars and they are received in lieu of local property
taxes. Those properties are non-taxable due to some type of
federal intervention. The federal government has come back
from their own program and indicated that they recognize
their obligation to support education because those
properties were moved off the tax roles. If those regions
were incorporated into boroughs, those properties still
would not be taxable and they would still generate the
federal dollars.
Mr. Jeans pointed out that the last student increase amount
occurred in 1993 under the instructional unit method of a
1.7% increase. Over the last ten years, that 1.7% increase
plus the 3.3% amount under SB 36 provides the 5% increase.
Representative Davies asked if any urban districts had
received some of the federal impact aid. Mr. Jeans stated
that there is only six schools districts in the State that
do not receive the impact aid. Most of the urban districts
do. In the military installations in Anchorage and
Fairbanks, the land is non-taxable and generates revenue.
Mr. Jeans addressed the cost differential adjustments. He
pointed out cost differences by regions, providing a
comparable program. It is not about adequate level of
funding. Under the cost differential, there will be
shifting in money once the report comes out. There will not
be a large increase required as a result of that study. The
number will adjust the way that the money is distributed in
the formula.
Representative Lancaster asked if it was expected that there
would be an increase as a result of that. Mr. Jeans replied
that the increase would be modest. Through the foundation
program, a $665 million dollar program in FY02 budget, and
the portion that makes up the cost differentials is less
th
than $70 million dollars. That would be 1/10 of the local
program.
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR advocated that the foundation formula
should be increased. He recommended that there needs to be
modifications and fine-tuning to that formula. He commented
that this would be the best the Legislature will see this
year. He noted that the bill that he submitted would raise
the formula by $210 dollars per student. Senator Taylor
stated that the bill provides for less than half of what is
necessary to adequately fund education. He encouraged
members to move forward.
In response to Representative J. Davies, Senator Taylor
advised that there are no nurses, no art and music programs,
and no physical education programs in the elementary schools
in his district. He stressed that there is a disparity in
the formula. The formula must be adjusted upward and he
proposed that the bill would be a good compromise.
SENATOR ALAN AUSTERMAN voiced his support for HB 105. He
stressed that the State must put more money into education.
Funding has not been increased for years and it is long
overdue. He noted that he had introduced legislation that
provides for a school head tax to help pay for education.
He offered to discuss that option.
CARL ROSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA SCHOOL
BOARDS, JUNEAU, voiced support for the legislation. Mr.
Rose noted that he had served on the Governor's Education
Task Force. That Task Force identified $34 million dollars
that is needed to "do the job". He pointed out that there
is one school district in which 58 positions have not been
filled. If those positions are not filled, they will be
filled with substitutes who are not qualified. He asked
what the chances were that those kids would be able to reach
the standards with substitute and unqualified teachers.
Mr. Rose suggested that over a period of time, the State has
been unable to attract and maintain quality teachers. A
future cost model would not reflect the ability to hire and
maintain good teachers. That is where the grade is made or
not. Mr. Rose voiced support for increasing the number
back to the original $28 million dollars that was contained
in HB 105. He stressed that there needs to be a broader
view, with a sound fiscal long-range plan. The State needs
to broaden the perspective for the future for Alaska. Mr.
Rose projected that with the current funding, education will
"hit the wall" in four to five years. He emphasized that
$34 million dollars was a modest request.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out there is a $600 million dollar
fiscal gap. He stated that whatever is done now, those
children will have to pay taxes to fill that gap. Mr.
Rose responded that the future holds potential for increased
revenue. The ability for the State to pay now and dollars
to be leveraged out of the earnings reserve, provide that a
number of options could generate a modest rate to offset
declining revenues and project a better picture for the
future.
PATRICK HICKEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), KENAI
PENNINSULA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, KENAI, voiced support
for the legislation.
Representative Moses noted that he resented the fact of
using the "fiscal gap" for not supporting the funding of
education. The State should be funding education properly.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1. [Copy on
File]. Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED.
Representative Davies explained that the amendment would
delete "$4,041" and insert "$4,091" to Page 1, Line 6. The
change would bring the State closer to the inflated number.
TAPE HFC 01 - 93, Side B
Co-Chair Williams agreed with Representative Moses that the
State should be increasing the amount, he however, pointed
out the difficulty increasing that amount would politically
cause at this time on the Senate side. He claimed that the
"push" to increase the budget came from the public.
Representative Croft questioned with whom the House Finance
Committee was compromising with. He stated that if the
House Finance Committee agrees that $150 dollars would be
the proper amount, then that is the amount that should be
included in the bill and forwarded to the other body.
Compromise is an important part of the legislative process.
He pointed out that two Senators have already indicated that
the number is too low. He emphasized that the appropriate
number should be placed into the legislation.
Representative Croft added that the formula would generate a
reduction to the State's contribution.
Representative Whitaker interjected that the Legislature has
begun the negotiation process. He acknowledged that there
would be a compromise within any system. He stated that $20
million dollars would be a reasonable number given the
circumstances. Representative Lancaster echoed sentiments
proposed by Representative Whitaker.
Vice-Chair Bunde pointed out that regardless the agreed
number, it would be impossible to satisfy all parties.
Recess: 3:20 p.m.
Reconvene: 3:40 p.m.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
#1.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Moses, Croft
OPPOSED: Foster, Harris, Hudson, Lancaster, Whitaker,
Bunde, Williams, Mulder
The MOTION FAILED (3-8).
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, the Intent
Language. [Copy on File].
Representative Davies noted concern that there would be a
separate accounting attached. Co-Chair Mulder explained
that his intent was to include "outcome performance based"
objectives.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that there was other legislation that
would call for a similar report. Co-Chair Mulder suggested
that both pieces of legislation could use the one report.
Representative Davies asked if it was the intent that the
language be placed in statute. Co-Chair Mulder replied that
it was his preference that the language be included in an
intent section in the bill. He added that either way would
be okay if it was attached. There being NO OBJECTION,
Amendment #2 was adopted.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report out of Committee CS HB 105
(EDU) with individual recommendations, the Letter of Intent
and with the accompanying fiscal note. Representative
Davies OBJECTED for a comment. He stated that the Minority
Caucus believes that the amount proposed was too low.
Representative J. Davies WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There
being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 105 (EDU) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a House Finance Letter of
Intent and a fiscal note #1 by Department of Education &
Early Development dated 4/23/01.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 133(HES) am
An Act relating to a two-year transition for
implementation of the public high school competency
examination and to establishing a secondary student
competency examination as a high school graduation
requirement; and providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Williams advised that there had been a MOTION
PENDING on Amendment #2. Vice-Chair Bunde reiterated his
OBJECTION.
Vice-Chair Bunde maintained that other states have held to
high standards even for the children education without an
Individual Education Program (IEP). He stated that the
"alternative assessment", determined by each district has
two faults. The local school districts may find it cheaper
and easier to reduce the standard to the student rather than
raising the student to a higher standard. He added that it
is a problem because each school board would determine what
an assessment is. There is no statewide standard
established.
Representative Lancaster commented that the intent of the
amendment was to work with the Department and the Alaska
State School Board Association.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Hudson, Lancaster, Moses, Whitaker, Croft,
Davies, Foster, Williams
OPPOSED: Bunde, Harris
Co-Chair Mulder was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8-2).
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3. He
explained that SB 105 had been pending referral at the time
that the amendment was drafted. Representative Croft stated
that the amendment was prepared in that context. He noted
that he would WITHDRAW Amendment #3 as it was not needed
with the passage of HB 105.
Representative Davies stressed that it would not be harmful
to have too much money on the table. He pointed out that HB
105 had further Committees to pass through before passage.
Representative Hudson MOVED to report HCS CS SB 133 (FIN)
out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CS SB 133 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note #1 by Department
of Education & Early Development dated 3/20/01.
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Suspending Rules 24(c), 35, 41(b), and 42(e), Uniform
Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, concerning
Senate Bill No. 133, relating to high school competency
testing.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HCR 14 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCR 14 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a zero fiscal note #1 by the House
HESS Committee dated 4/12/01.
Recess: 3:55 P.M.
Reconvene: 4:15 P.M.
HOUSE BILL NO. 179
An Act relating to underage drinking and drug offenses;
and providing for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG discussed that in 1994, the
Legislature enacted the "Use It, Lose It" law (AS 28.15.183)
for minors who are caught possessing or using alcohol. If a
minor were caught using alcohol, their driver's license
would be administratively revoked for a period of time. In
December, in a case State versus Niedermeyer, the Alaska
Supreme Court found that taking away a minor's driver's
license for possession or consumption of alcohol or a
controlled substance, without giving them a trial, was in
violation of a minor's constitutional right to due process.
Representative Rokeberg commented that if a minor is caught
using alcohol or drugs, they are sent a letter from the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) stating that the DMV will
not revoke their license until there has been a court
conviction for the offense. At present, the district
attorney's office is not prosecuting minors caught for
consumption of alcohol, because the court system is not
prepared to handle jury trials for this type of case.
The effect of the Niedermeyer decision is that minors now go
virtually unpunished for possessing or consuming alcohol.
The maximum penalty that may currently be enforced on minors
who are caught consuming or possessing alcohol is a $100
fine.
Representative Rokeberg advised that the law would impose
appropriate punishments on minors who use alcohol, and will
be a deterrent to minors when they consider drinking.
Statistics show that the earlier a person begins drinking,
the more likely they are to have problems with alcohol later
in life. By sending a message early to minors that their
actions will not go unpunished, we hope to deter alcohol
problems in the future.
Representative Rokeberg continued that the bill would
establish a graduated system of punishment for minors who
are caught consuming, possessing or controlling alcohol. On
a minor's first offense, he/she would be subject to a fine
of between $200-600, would have to attend alcohol
information school, and would be placed on probation. For a
minor's second offense, the minor would be guilty of repeat
minor consuming and would be subject to a fine of $1000, at
least 48 hours of community work service, a three-month
license revocation, and probation. A minor's third offense
would cause them to be guilty of habitual minor consuming,
which would be a Class B misdemeanor, resulting in up to a
$1000 fine and 90 days in jail. In addition, the minor
would lose his/her license for a period of six months, would
be required to complete at least 96 hours of community work
service, and be placed on probation.
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned the "three time" aspect of the
legislation and suggested that a second offense should merit
serious consequences. Representative Rokeberg explained
that the second offense does demand the option for a jury
trial and mandates a three-month revocation of the driver's
license. He noted that the testimony before the House
Judiciary Committee pointed out that under the current use
it or loose it statute, there were juveniles in the State
that had up to seven offenses, thus, creating a problem with
revocation of licenses. He thought that statute was a
failure.
Vice-Chair Bunde referenced the chart distributed and the
second offense charges associated with the offense. [Copy
on File]. Discussion followed between Vice-Chair Bunde and
Representative Rokeberg regarding current law default.
Representative Foster referenced the sponsor statement
recommendation for an Alcohol Information School. He
inquired how attendance would be mandated. Representative
Rokeberg replied that would be mandatory if such a school
was available in that area.
Co-Chair Williams MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1. [Copy on
File]. Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Rokeberg explained that the amendment would
delete all material on Page 2, Line 3, following the word
"group", and replacing that language with: "Selected by the
court to serve as a sentencing option for persons convicted
of a violation under this section". He noted that the
Courts had recommended the amendment for greater
flexibility.
Co-Chair Mulder WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2. [Copy on
File]. Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Rokeberg stated that the amendment would
delete all language on Page 6, Lines 5-6.
CHUCK HOSACK, [TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERNCE], DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, ANCHORAGE, noted that
the Division supported Amendment #2.
TAPE HFC 01 - 94, Side A
Co-Chair Williams WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Hudson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3. [Copy on
File]. Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Hudson asked to amend Amendment #3 by adding
"Juneau" to the definition of pilot juvenile alcohol safety
action programs. He added that following "Kotzebue", adding
the language "for treatment only". He asked if the Alcohol
Safety Action Programs (ASAP) had been included in the bill.
Representative Rokeberg replied they were. He added that
the amendment would limit the treatment elements. He
suggested that the amendment could reduce the cost of the
fiscal notes while continuing the concept.
Representative Davies agreed with the intent of the
amendment, however, noted that the way in which the
amendment had been written would cause problems. He
suggested deleting the amendment from the Page 12, Lines 13-
14. He believed that could remove all ASAP's from the bill.
ELMER LINDSTROM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO COMMISSIONER PERDUE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, stated that the
intent of the legislation was to allow for the juvenile
alcohol safety action program to continue as originally
envisioned and limit obligations for the additional
treatment dollars. Mr. Lindstrom claimed that it would be a
mistake to delete that language. He commented that the
cleanest way would be through intent language which would
allow the additional treatment resources in those locations
and would allow the fiscal notes to conform to that.
Representative Davies advised that there were additional
portions of the amendment that do not work together.
Representative Rokeberg voiced concern with switching from
unqualified law to a letter of intent for the program. He
voiced concern with the cost containment unless there was a
strict review by the HESS budget subcommittee about how that
program would be expanded. He reiterated that the letter of
intent would not be enough. Co-Chair Williams agreed.
Representative Davies suggested modifying the amendment, on
Page 12, omitting that section and inserting a new bill
Section #18.
Co-Chair Williams asked that Representative J. Davies and
Representative Rokeberg work together to come up with
appropriate language.
At-Ease: 4:45 P.M.
Reconvene: 4:50 P.M.
Representative Hudson WITHDREW the amendment to the
amendment. Representative Hudson WITHDREW Amendment #3.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT a new Amendment #3. He
referenced the old Amendment #3 and stated that the new #3
would retain the changes recommended to Page 3, Line 5 and
Page 9, Line 29. On Page 12, the delete portion would be
struck and then retaining the inserted language. Page 12,
Lines 13-4 would read, "Insert a new bill section". The new
section would read: "Alcohol Treatment Program". He added
that after "Fairbanks", "Juneau" should be inserted with
"for treatment only". All the language on Page 12, Line 15
would be eliminated.
Co-Chair Mulder clarified the amendment would decrease the
fiscal note to $800 thousand dollars.
Mr. Lindstrom spoke to the three fiscal notes from
Department of Health & Social Services. He noted that the
amendment would reduce note #1 to $400 thousand dollars and
that note #2 and #3 would remain the same.
There being NO OBJECTION, the new Amendment #3 was adopted.
Representative Hudson MOVED to report CS HB 179 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes with the indicated changes. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 179 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by #2 Department
of Corrections, #5 Department of Health & Social Services,
#6 Department of Health & Social Services, and new fiscal
notes by the Department of Law, the Alaska Court System,
Department of Health & Social Services, and Department of
Administration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 250
An Act relating to missions and measures to be applied
to certain expenditures by the executive branch of
state government and the University of Alaska from the
state operating budget for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2002; and providing for an effective date.
DENNY DEWITT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER, provided
information on HB 250. He observed that the legislation is
the result of work by the House Finance subcommittees. He
referred to Page 40, Line 13. He noted that provisions were
added to Page 2, Lines 15 and 16. He explained that the
language had been added to determine how consumer complaints
are tracked and addressed.
Mr. DeWitt commented that a few technical amendments are
needed. He explained that the budget was not organized in a
manner that allows comparison with the budget bill, which
has been changed in HB 250 to allow for the comparisons and
formatting of the budget bill as passed by the House. The
change is referred to on Page 37, Line 10. There are
references in a number of sections that would identify
performance measures within the Department of Law. He added
that an additional technical amendment would be needed on
Page 39, Section 105, Line 17 and 18, noting that the
National Guard Youth Corps had changed its name to the
Alaska Military Youth Academy which was not caught in the
prepared draft.
Mr. DeWitt advised that there had been other requests for
changes and explained that not all were included.
Representative Davies voiced his concern with the change to
all of the commissioner's offices. Mr. DeWitt acknowledged
that had been included.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to ADOPT the technical amendments.
There being NO OBJECTION, they were adopted.
Representative Lancaster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2. [Copy
on File]. He pointed out that it was a technical amendment.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Davies discussed Amendment #3, the
commissioner's offices on Page 2, Lines 15 and 16. [Copy on
File]. He noted his concern that subcommittees did not have
the opportunity to discuss those provisions. Representative
J. Davies stated that there are agencies that do not make
sense.
Co-Chair Mulder argued in support of the change. He
observed that some agencies would have more complaints due
to the issues involved.
Representative Davies pointed out that most complaints are
dealt with at the division level within the departments;
however, others come to the commissioner's level. He
emphasized that the intent of missions and measures was a
"meeting of the minds" which the amendment could represent.
Representative Croft noted that appeals would be separate
from the Department of Revenue. Mr. Dewitt explained that
the Department of Revenue had indicated that the process was
fairly easy to keep track and helpful as a management tool.
He advised that it is the Legislature's responsibility to
track the commissioner's level.
Co-Chair Mulder stated his support for retaining the
provision for one year. He noted that modifications could
be made. Representative Davies reiterated that there has
not been an opportunity to have discussions and asked that
communication be initiated with the commissioner offices.
Co-Chair Mulder stressed that the provision is new and that
it is the intent of the Committee to work with the agencies
for the refinement of the provisions. He reiterated that it
would be an effective tool.
Representative Davies WITHDREW Amendment #3.
Mr. Dewitt reviewed Amendment #4, a technical amendment.
[Copy on File]. He explained that the amendment would
affect the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and
that the subcommittee chair had agreed them to.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #5. [Copy on
File]. Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED.
Representative Croft spoke in support of the amendment. He
noted that it would add a new section indicating that:
"The mission of the Alaska State Legislature is to
create a balanced state budget, encourage public
participation in government and work to preserve and
further the general health, economic vitality,
educational needs and growth for the people of the
state of Alaska".
Co-Chair Mulder stated that he supports the intent of the
amendment, however, suggested that it would be difficult to
hold the legislature accountable for items that they do not
have direct control over.
Representative Davies argued that the Legislature should
manage and control revenues through other measures.
Representative Croft noted that it is difficult to craft
missions and measures which are significant and broad enough
to be important. He commented on the need to have open
discussion on the amendment and the "art of the process".
TAPE HFC 01 - 94, SIDE B
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Bunde, Croft, Davies
OPPOSED: Harris, Hudson, Lancaster, Foster, Mulder
Representatives Moses, Whitaker, and Williams were absent.
The MOTION FAILED (3-5).
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #6 on Page
31, Line 15, deleting that language. He noted that measure
had not been discussed in subcommittee. Representative
Harris agreed that the language could be deleted. There
being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #6 was adopted.
Representative J. Davies requested that Mr. DeWitt repeat
his previous statement regarding Department of Natural
Resources. Mr. Dewitt explained that there was a
substantive change to the measure of inventory. He added
that there were additional minor areas of concern. The
percentage change language was removed.
Representative Hudson MOVED to ADOPT a language change on
Page 42, Line 28, deleting "claims", and inserting
"location". There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Co-Chair Mulder pointed out that the bill has a zero fiscal
note.
Vice-Chair Bunde MOVED to report CSHB 250 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
CS HB 250 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
House Finance Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|