Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/29/1993 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 1993
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Representative Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Harley Olberg
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Pete Kott
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation Hearing - Board of Dental Examiners
APPOINTEES PASSED ON TO THE HOUSE WITH NO
RECOMMENDATIONS
HB 82: "An Act relating to school construction grants and
major maintenance grants to school districts;
providing for school district participation in the
cost of school construction and major maintenance;
creating a major maintenance grant fund; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH NO RECOMMENDATIONS
HB 83: "An Act making appropriations for construction and
major maintenance of schools; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. BURTON MILLER, Appointee
Board of Dental Examiners
(Address & Phone not provided by Comm. Secy.)
Position Statement: Provided information and answered
questions related to his appointment
GARY BADER, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Education
801 West 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Phone: (907) 465-2875
Position statement: Answered questions on HB 83
JOE RYAN, Legislative Aide
to Representative Al Vezey
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: (907) 465-3719
Position statement: Answered questions on HB 83
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 82
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE GRANTS
BILL VERSION: CSHB 82(FIN)
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act relating to school construction grants and
major maintenance grants to school districts; providing for
school district participation in the cost of school
construction and major maintenance; creating a major
maintenance grant fund; creating an education facilities
maintenance and construction fund and providing for an
effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 131 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 132 (H) HES, FINANCE
01/22/93 132 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 1/22/93
01/22/93 132 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (DOT, REV) 1/22/93
01/22/93 132 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/09/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/09/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/09/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/09/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/16/93 (H) HES AT 03:30 PM CAPITOL 106
03/16/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/22/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/23/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/23/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/29/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 83
SHORT TITLE: APPROP:SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION GRANT FUND
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
TITLE: "An Act making appropriations for construction and
major maintenance of schools; and providing for an effective
date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/93 134 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/22/93 134 (H) HES, FINANCE
01/22/93 134 (H) -REVENUE FN (REV) 1/22/93
01/22/93 134 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOT)
1/22/93
01/22/93 134 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/09/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/09/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/09/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/09/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/16/93 (H) HES AT 03:30 PM CAPITOL 106
03/16/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/23/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/23/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/29/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-50, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m.,
noted members present, and announced the calendar.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS - BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS
Number 053
CHAIR BUNDE invited Dr. Burton Miller to offer any opening
statement he might have concerning his appointment.
DR. BURTON MILLER, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS,
testified via teleconference. He has been an active member
of the dental board since May, 1992.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. Miller if he understood the time
commitments of board service and if he was comfortable with
those commitments.
Number 066
DR. MILLER said he had attended all board meetings since his
appointment, and had volunteered for other commitments, some
involving travel outside Alaska.
CHAIR BUNDE invited committee members to question the
appointee.
Number 076
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY noted Dr. Miller's resume and
the training it cited, and asked whether he was required to
take recurrent training. (A copy of Dr. Miller's resume may
be found in the House Health, Education and Social Services
Committee Room, Capitol Room 106, and after the adjournment
of the second session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature,
in the Legislative Reference Library.)
DR. MILLER answered that he had to take 14 hours of
continuing education each year, or 28 hours each two years,
dealing with hands-on dentistry, a recent requirement new in
the last six years.
Number 094
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked about professional
presentations cited on Dr. Miller's curriculum vitae,
notably an Alaska Pacific University presentation on Mercury
Toxicity from Dental Amalgams in 1987, a South Central
District Dental Society presentation on the Potential Health
Hazards of Dental Amalgam in 1988, and a guest lecture to
numerous groups in Illinois and Alaska on Bio-compatibility
of Dental Materials. Representative G. Davis asked about
bio-compatibility.
DR. MILLER answered that bio-compatibility was the chemical
component of dentistry, or how the restorative materials
used for dental implants react chemically with the
(unintelligible) environment - whether the materials are
bio-compatible. He said that the manufacturers of some
materials used in his office, such as composites, have
undergone "live cell" tests, in which the finished composite
product is introduced into a petri dish along with live
cells. If the material kills off the cells, it is
considered toxic, he said. If the cells grow, the material
is considered cancerous, and if the cells are not affected,
the material is considered bio-compatible, he said.
Number 126
CHAIR BUNDE invited other questions or comments. He then
mentioned Dr. Miller's comments indicating a desire to help
the governor's efforts to promote alternative medicine, and
Dr. Miller's goal of creating a balance between orthodox and
bio-compatible dentistry. Chair Bunde asked Dr. Miller if
he viewed his position on the board as one of an adversary
to orthodox dentistry.
DR. MILLER answered, "No, absolutely not." He said the two
camps had lots to learn from each other. At the last board
meeting, he said, the board had asked for an opinion as to
whether dental amalgams were safe devices. He said he
explained that Congress and the President in 1976, gave the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the sole authority
to judge amalgams safe or unsafe, and that as yet the FDA
had not accepted amalgams as a totally safe and effective
dental material. He said that if the state board approved
amalgams, it would be overriding the FDA authority, and he
suggested passing over the issue, which is what happened.
Number 152
CHAIR BUNDE understood that even pure oxygen could be
harmful in excessive amounts, and that amalgam was toxic.
He asked if there were cases in which amalgams could be
used, and people could accept such fillings, without adverse
effects.
DR. MILLER answered that yes, there were such cases, but
dentistry did not, at that time, have a definitive test to
make such a determination. He had learned from his sources
that there would be a study published on the effects of
amalgams on humans. He said the studies had been done by
three prestigious U.S. universities, and more information
was becoming available as to the potential toxicity problems
of dental amalgams. He said several research studies on
sheep and monkeys have been published in prestigious
refereed journals.
DR. MILLER stated the studies showed identical responses;
that mercury leaks out of the teeth, and that mercury
concentrates in other organs, including brain tissue and
kidneys. He alleged the sheep study showed a 50 percent
reduction in kidney function, and the study on monkeys
showed similar effects. He assumed that similar studies
were being performed on human tissue, though he was not sure
of the exact procedure. He said there was a growing body of
documented research showing the potential toxic effects of
mercury dental amalgams.
DR. MILLER said while some people could use such materials
without problems, some people can also smoke cigarettes
without getting cancer.
Number 186
CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. Miller whether he used such fillings.
DR. MILLER replied in the negative.
CHAIR BUNDE asked whether, as a member of the dental board,
he could fairly and impartially judge a dentist who used
such materials.
DR. MILLER said absolutely, and that he had just judged more
than 100 candidates at a dentistry board test in Loma Linda,
California. He said one of the projects was a dental
amalgam along with a gold inlay, and he believed he judged
them very fairly.
Number 198
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS referred to the bio-compatibility
test, and asked whether Dr. Miller had performed such tests.
DR. MILLER answered that he had not, but others had, and the
test showed the amalgam had killed off live cells
surrounding it. He described the amalgam as a mixture of
approximately 52 percent elemental mercury, with the balance
of the alloy being comprised of silver, zinc, tin and
copper, which also had toxic effects on humans. Years ago,
he said, it was believed that the amalgam would be stable
when it hardened. However, in 1979, someone used a mercury
vapor detector on amalgams, and was shocked to discover how
much mercury was leaking off the amalgams, he said.
DR. MILLER said this gave rise to what dentists call the
"Third Amalgam War," when doubts began to arise as to the
material's safety.
Number 221
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked if he knew whether the cells
that died off in the bio-compatibility test were human,
sheep or monkey cells.
DR. MILLER replied in the negative.
CHAIR BUNDE thanked Dr. Miller for his time.
DR. MILLER asked Chair Bunde how long the confirmation
process was likely to take, noting that he had much material
from the board and wondered whether it would be worth his
while to begin delving into it.
Number 231
CHAIR BUNDE answered that the committee meeting was an
opportunity to take testimony on the appointment, and the
committee would pass Dr. Miller's name, along with those of
other appointees, to the House floor, where individual votes
would be taken on each appointee.
DR. MILLER asked how long that process would take.
CHAIR BUNDE said that the scheduling was done at the
pleasure of the Speaker of the House, who had not discussed
the issue with him.
DR. MILLER thanked Chair Bunde, and signed off from the
teleconference.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the committee would also consider
Kevin L. Gottlieb, DDS, of Anchorage; Robert W. Robinson II,
DMD, of Wasilla; Carolyn J. Michels, of Nome; and, Gloria C.
Gresser, of Barrow as appointees to the Board of Dental
Examiners. He passed out the letters of transmittal and
asked committee members to sign them, noting that the
signatures did not give any indication as to how the members
would vote on the actual confirmations on the House floor.
Number 255
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked why the letters indicated that
the appointees had already been appointed.
CHAIR BUNDE answered that the appointees still needed to be
confirmed. He then announced his intent to hear HB 82 as
soon as the teleconference link was established with other
sites. He announced further that the committee would be
hearing HB 82 for the third time, and it was his intention
to move both HB 82 and HB 83 from committee. He noted that
the meeting was being teleconferenced to Anchorage,
Soldotna, Valdez, Tok, Kuspuk, Tanana, Galena and
Glennallen. He opened public testimony, and noted that the
committee had adopted a work draft on March 23, 1993.
HB 82: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE GRANTS
Number 291
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY did not have a copy of the working
draft.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE also needed a copy of the work
draft.
Number 297
CHAIR BUNDE OFFERED an AMENDMENT to the work draft
concerning school districts' participating share, on page 2,
line 22. His amendment recognized both the value of
participation and the financial realities of some school
districts. He proposed dropping the district participating
share on line 22 to 5% from 20%. He asked for objections or
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS had no problem with the amendment,
and favored a top cap of from 30% to 40% at the most. He
sought amendments to the language concerning all of the
district participating shares, and said he would be glad to
take the amendments one at a time.
Number 323
REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG preferred that the district
participating share for the districts identified on line 22
to be 0%.
CHAIR BUNDE understood that preference, and called for
further discussion on the amendment.
Number 333
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS desired to add an amendment.
CHAIR BUNDE preferred to take care of the amendments one at
a time, and, hearing no objections, DECLARED HIS AMENDMENT
PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS MOVED an AMENDMENT to page 2, line
23 to change the percentage to 25% from 30%; line 24 to
change the percentage to 30% from 40%; and line 25 to change
the percentage to 35% from 50%.
Number 341
CHAIR BUNDE OBJECTED to the motion for the purpose of
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS said there was an effort to make
school districts responsible for their desires, but also a
desire to make the funding as equitable as possible. He
said the 50% matching requirement was too high, and if the
contribution levels were lowered for the poorer districts,
then similar adjustments should be made for the richer
districts.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that the committee was
debating an issue not germane to the school funding issue,
as up to 75% of the funds for school construction in the
state did not come from the state, but from local or federal
sources.
Number 366
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the Department of Education
(DOE) could tell the committee what impact the amendments
just passed would have on the list of school projects
outlined in HB 83.
CHAIR BUNDE said it would be premature, as he intended to
rewrite HB 83 thoroughly.
Number 374
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked whether HB 83 would not be driven
by HB 82.
CHAIR BUNDE said he might have misunderstood Representative
Brice's question, as the two bills were certainly related.
Number 379
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he had been provided HB 83, a list
of projects and an appropriations bill with $150 million
going to those projects. He asked if the changes to HB 82
would change the amount of money available for the projects
in HB 83.
CHAIR BUNDE said that, while he hesitated to speak for the
DOE, the percentages under consideration by the DOE were not
the same as those presented by the DOE. He said the changes
were revenue-positive.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG said the committee might at least have
to make HB 83 not subject to the changes in HB 82, because
he was sure that HB 83 represented money available before
any changes, and that if the committee changed the funding
figures in HB 82 it would throw off the numbers in the
priority list.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that the committee would have to
change the effective date on HB 82. He said the committee
should keep in mind that it could establish various
effective dates for different parts of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked a representative from
the DOE to explain the impacts of the changes in the
district participating share provisions of HB 82 on Rural
Education Attendance Areas (REAAs).
Number 412
GARY BADER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION said, "It is very difficult to say,
the first question about overall, would it require more
state money to fund the same list, or less, (I) simply can't
say without actually running the numbers. The table is
different, the match requirements are different. As you
recall, HB 83 as it's before you without the committee
substitute, has a sliding scale on the first year. The
matching requirements weren't as aggressive as they were
further out. So it's just impossible to say."
MR. BADER continued, "In terms of the REAAs, clearly we have
a zero match the first year. This committee substitute
would have a 5% match. And so in terms of the dollar amount
of match that would have to be raised, I couldn't say, but
we can certainly get a feel for it."
Number 424
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG said that the work draft of CSHB 82
(HES) eliminated paragraph C, relating to the phase-in of
the REAA district participation share. He said it was
obvious that such a provision could not take effect in 90
days.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY raised a point of order. He asked if
it was possible to limit discussion to the amendment before
the committee, instead of veering back to HB 82, as amended.
Number 437
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the amendment before the committee
was whether to make the changes in district participation
shares that Representative G. Davis had suggested, which
reduced the percentages from 30% to 25%, 40% to 30%, and 50%
to 35% for school districts falling into varying categories
of property value. He said the committee would consider the
changes one at a time. He then asked if there were
objections to the first reduction from 30% to 25% on line
23. He said, "Forgive me, Anchorage, but they have told me
they would support 30%, and so I would speak against your
reduction to 25%." He then asked for other opinions.
Number 446
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS asked Representative G. Davis to
repeat his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS repeated his amendment for
Representative B. Davis' clarification.
Number 452
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked whether the committee had
already passed an amendment to line 22.
CHAIR BUNDE replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS wanted to make an amendment.
CHAIR BUNDE said there was a previous amendment on the
floor. He called for a roll call vote on that amendment.
Those voting YEA were Representatives B. Davis, Nicholia,
Brice, and G. Davis. Those voting NO were Representatives
Vezey, Olberg, Toohey, and Bunde. The AMENDMENT FAILED.
Number 474
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS MOVED an AMENDMENT that would
eliminate the requirement that REAAs make a matching
contribution for state school construction funding. She did
not believe that REAAs could afford to pay 5% of the cost of
such projects.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that even the governor had wanted REAAs to
eventually pay a 3.8% match.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS wanted to put CSHB 82 (HES) back to
its original state, in which the match would start at 1.5%,
then rise to 3.8% over several years.
Number 476
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG noted that the matching requirement
for REAAs in the original version of HB 82 called for them
to pay a 1% match in the school year starting in 1994, which
would increase by 1.4% in each of the next two years, to a
total of 3.8%.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said that her amendment would have
the effect of requiring matching contributions of 5% from
districts with property valued at from $1 to $100,000 per
full value per ADM (Average Daily Membership).
Number 485
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY OBJECTED.
CHAIR BUNDE noted the objection and called for further
discussion.
Number 487
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Representative B. Davis to
restate her motion.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS repeated her motion, to have the 5%
matching requirement apply to those school districts with
property value per ADM of from $1 to $100,000. That would
eliminate from that bracket the 21 REAAs, which have no
property value.
CHAIR BUNDE said that at this point the REAAs would be
receiving 100% state funding for school construction.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said the committee could later
address that issue.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that the governor's bill required the
REAAs eventually to pay 3.8% as matching grants. If the
districts could pay 3.8%, he said, they could pay 5%.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that HB 82 had a clause
exempting a REAA from having to make any matching
contribution for school construction, if it could prove that
it either could not do so, or that providing such a share
would jeopardize its federal education funding. That clause
had been eliminated from CSHB 82 (HES), she said, and
recommended it be returned.
Number 504
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY was reluctant not to require any local
contribution, whether it was labor, material or equipment.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said her amendment did not deal with
REAAs, as it was limited to districts with more than $1 per
full value ADM in property value. She said the REAA issue
could be dealt with later, but she did not want to require a
5% match from REAAs.
Number 509
CHAIR BUNDE called for further discussion, and hearing none,
called for a roll call vote on Representative B. Davis'
amendment. Those voting YEA were Representatives Nicholia,
Brice, B. Davis, and Olberg. Those voting NO were
Representatives Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, and Toohey. The
measure FAILED. He then asked for further discussion.
Number 524
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked a clarifying question on the
percentage of local contribution shares required under
HB 82, which were outlined in the working draft.
CHAIR BUNDE said that the percentages existed as they were
in the working draft. He called for further discussion on
HB 82 as a whole.
Number 527
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said his subcommittee on HB 82 had met
three times, and had not gotten past section 3. He noted
that the major impact of the bill was in its later sections,
establishing the DOE as the body which would appropriate
money for the school construction program outlined in the
bill. He said that while the subcommittee debated the draft
formula, the process of allocating grants was more
important. He expressed concern about the legislature
abrogating its appropriation authority. He recommended
DELETING sections 4 through section 11. He then, for
discussion purposes, MOVED DELETION of sections 4 through
section 12.
Number 548
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS OBJECTED.
Number 550
MR. BADER said that the sections mentioned were already in
statute, and the sections in CSHB 82 (HES) merely redefined
construction projects to be capital improvement projects,
and inserted language regarding use of the maintenance
account, instead of the capital improvement account. He
said the DOE valued the distinction between health-life-
safety and unhoused student needs, and maintenance needs.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that the rest of the sections
had little substance, and merely brought the statutes into
line with the actions in the earlier sections of CSHB 82
(HES).
Number 564
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG suggested that school districts
precluded from future construction by paragraph 3 would not
care about the subsequent sections. He said the committee
had to give the DOE some leeway sooner or later. He allowed
that he might not be understanding Representative Vezey's
suggestion.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the sections he proposed deleting
contained mostly housekeeping details, but also contained
some key phrases that emphasized that CSHB 82 (HES) was
based on the premise that a fund was established to be
appropriated without further legislative action,
specifically in section 7 and section 8. His concern was
aggravated in that it appeared as though the legislature
would have to use the constitutional budget reserve funds as
a funding source, requiring a three-fourths vote of the full
legislature.
Number 586
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE CALLED THE QUESTION.
CHAIR BUNDE noted the call, and repeated Representative
Vezey's motion to delete section 4 through section 12. He
called for a roll call vote. Representative Vezey voted
YEA. Those voting NO were Representatives G. Davis, Olberg,
B. Davis, Nicholia, Brice, Toohey, and Bunde. The MOTION
FAILED.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE MOVED an AMENDMENT to section 3, line
7, adding a new section D that would consist of language
taken from the original HB 82, page 3, line 7, starting with
"an REAA" and continuing through line 11. He said the
amendment would return to the working draft the provision
that REAAs would be exempted, in whole or in part, from the
local contribution requirement if the commissioner of the
DOE determined that the REAA could not afford the
contribution, or if the contribution would jeopardize the
REAA's federal funding.
TAPE 93-50, SIDE B
Number 005
CHAIR BUNDE noted OBJECTION to the motion, and invited
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that his amendment would add a
section C to section 3 which would allow various other
funding sources, plus sweat equity or equipment, to be used
as sources of matching funding. He said that his amendment
would make it more equitable to require matching
contribution from areas with lower property values.
Number 030
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked whether the committee was
assuming that REAAs could meet the match requirement with
materials, equipment or labor.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE replied in the affirmative. He added
that if REAAs could not offer any of those as matching
contributions, then they should be able to write for a state
grant.
Number 045
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "May I further continue? If
they don't have that to match, they don't have children in
school. There is no way ... "
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE interrupted. He disagreed, saying he
had been in many villages on Alaska's west coast that could
not afford to meet such matches.
Number 052
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that rural school districts are
the poorest of the poor, and that people in some villages
are unemployed and barely survive. She said it would be as
hard to find people to volunteer their time and work in the
Bush as it would be in Anchorage. She SUPPORTED the
amendment, as it addressed the actual bleakness of the
situation in villages, where education was nonetheless
important.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY echoed Representative Toohey's
statement. He said that the cost of labor was 50% of the
cost of construction, and land, about 5%. He could not
conceive of an area that could not come up with 5% of the
cost of school construction. He said that urban areas were
not being treated fairly under HB 82.
Number 100
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the inconceivable did occur, and
if a school district was so broke it could not provide
labor, resources or other contributions, then the amendment
would never be put into effect.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked to see a draft contract for a
deal in which a district would provide volunteer labor. He
said that land had value, and near Delta Junction 30 acres
were for sale at $22,000. He said every community wanted to
contribute something to its schools, and that was the reason
he was drafting a school tax bill for the unorganized
borough. He said that the local labor match would be
difficult to effect, unless it were for site preparation.
Number 135
CHAIR BUNDE strongly FAVORED a local match as a way to build
pride in ownership. He SUPPORTED Representative Brice's
amendment, as he understood the need for safety valves or
mechanisms in exceptional circumstances. He called for a
roll call vote. Those voting YEA were Representatives
Brice, Toohey, Bunde, G. Davis, Olberg, B. Davis, and
Nicholia. Representative Vezey voted NO. The MOTION
PASSED.
Number 150
CHAIR BUNDE called for further discussion and, hearing none,
said he would entertain a motion.
Number 153
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY MOVED PASSAGE of HB 82 with individual
recommendations.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for objections and, hearing none, the
MOTION CARRIED.
The committee next addressed HB 83.
HB 83: APPROP: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION GRANT FUND
Number 170
CHAIR BUNDE opened public testimony on HB 83.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY distributed copies of a blank CS
version of HB 83.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked if the CS version of HB 83 was
different from the version under consideration earlier.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Vezey to address the
question.
Number 179
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that the CS contained changes in
the funding source. The original funding source for HB 83
was to have been a school construction fund, the name of
which he could not recall. The CS to HB 83 discussed in the
HESS subcommittee which he chaired considered the General
Fund as a source of funding. The blank CS currently before
the committee assumed the constitutional budget reserve as
its source of funding, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Representative Vezey if he
followed the governor's priority in writing his work draft.
She observed that some of the construction proposals in the
work draft were low on the governor's list.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied in the negative.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA repeated her question.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY repeated his answer.
Number 206
CHAIR BUNDE said the governor's priority list did not come
close to allocating funds in relation to the percentage of
students in a district or area. He said that the blank CS
was an attempt to allocate the funds more equitably; the
more students in a district, the more projects it received.
The governor's construction projects' proposal invested 9%
in Anchorage, 8% in Fairbanks, 3% in Mat-Su, and 0.3% in
Kenai, but 56% in REAAs, he said. In the CS, the funding
was distributed in approximate proportion to the
distribution of the student population in the state, he
said.
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that the title called for
appropriation from the constitutional budget reserve, and
called that a major step forward which he believed deserved
to be noted.
Number 231
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked for comment from the DOE, and
asked a departmental representative if he had seen the list
earlier.
MR. BADER answered that the list contained in the blank CS
was presented in the subcommittee two weeks before. He said
he could not comment, and added that when the DOE assembled
the list it had not tried to balance it according to
percentages of money spent by each school district.
Number 245
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said the governor had written his
list based on how long schools had been waiting for funding,
and on whether the funding addressed life-threatening
situations.
MR. BADER said the governor's list was built according to an
internal DOE ranking of all projects statewide, and that
there was a decision to spend approximately $40 million on
maintenance, with the balance coming from the school
construction account.
Number 261
CHAIR BUNDE had a letter from the governor seeking a
technical adjustment to the funding list. He said the
Ketchikan Gateway Borough High School was already under
construction, and that the funding amount in HB 83 should be
$9,501,600. He said there had been a funding error, which
the governor's suggested funding level would correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE MOVED an AMENDMENT to increase the
Ketchikan High School line to the level requested by the
governor.
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY OBJECTED. He did not believe it was
possible to simply add money to that project without cutting
funding elsewhere in the bill. He opposed any motion to add
an increment without taking a corresponding decrement.
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would discuss the decrement
after addressing the increment.
Number 290
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS said that HB 83 drew money from the
constitutional budget reserve. He said any additions to the
bill could simply be added to the bill, and the additional
money withdrawn from that reserve fund.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked Representative Brice to amend
his motion to increase the total appropriation by the same
amount as it increased money for the Ketchikan High School,
which he said was $2,850,500, as stated in the governor's
letter.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY did not believe the motion was
necessary, as the $8,240,000 in the blank CS was a state
grant, and if there was a 20% local match, the project would
have enough money to be completed.
Number 305
MR. BADER said the project had been going on for several
years. The DOE believed Ketchikan had already met its
obligation for matching funds, he said, which was the reason
the appropriation amount was understated. He said the
school project was in its final phase, and short-funding it
by about $1.3 million would force the addition of another
phase to the project, and add expenses.
There followed much general discussion among committee
members relating to the total amount of money necessary to
fund the various phases of the high school building project,
how much money had already been appropriated for it, and how
much of the Ketchikan school district's obligation for local
matching funds had already been provided.
Number 355
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE CALLED THE QUESTION.
CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged the call for the question of
whether the committee should amend the working draft of
HB 83 to increase the appropriation to the Ketchikan Gateway
Borough for the final construction phase of its high school
building project to $9,501,600. He called for a roll call
vote on the motion. Those voting YEA were Representatives
G. Davis, Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia, Brice, Toohey, and
Bunde. Those voting NO were Representatives Vezey, and
Kott. The MOTION PASSED.
CHAIR BUNDE said that the committee then faced the question
of whether to increase the total appropriation by
$1,261,666, or whether there should be a decrement in that
amount to the total appropriation amount.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE believed the motion was to increase the
total appropriation.
CHAIR BUNDE said that the committee had already increased
the Ketchikan portion but had not decided if there would be
a decrement. He asked if Representative Brice was making a
motion to increase the total appropriation by the $1,261,666
making the total appropriation $109,441,663.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE CALLED THE QUESTION.
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked if the committee was working
from HB 83 or from the CS for the bill. He was notified
that the committee was working from the CS version. He then
asked if the committee was amending the amount in section 1
as well as the amount of the appropriation.
CHAIR BUNDE said the committee had amended line 12 to read
$9,501,600.
Further discussion followed.
Number 465
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE announced that he had to leave for
another engagement, and asked the chair's intention.
CHAIR BUNDE intended to have a vote on the bill soon.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked for 15 to 20 minutes.
CHAIR BUNDE noted that there was an amendment on the table
to increase the total amount of the appropriation to
$109,446,663. He called for further discussion.
Number 470
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY OPPOSED the AMENDMENT because the
committee would get unlimited requests for additional
projects, and $150 million in FY 94 school spending had been
agreed upon. Without some discipline, he said, the requests
for more funding for school construction would be unlimited.
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS could not disagree with a little
discipline, and stated there had been some dispute about the
numbers. He did not want to see the state's share of the
Ketchikan High School project reduced, as his district had
experienced the shock of the state reducing its share of
school funding, and leaving it up to the local school
district to make up the difference. He said it was
impossible for the committee to deduce the meaning of the
governor's letter. He said he would support the legislation
as a way to reduce the shock to the people of Ketchikan.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for more discussion, and hearing none,
called for a roll call vote on the amendment. Those voting
YEA were Representatives Kott, Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia,
Toohey, Bunde, and G. Davis. Representative Vezey voted NO.
The MOTION PASSED.
CHAIR BUNDE announced that the appropriation from the
constitutional budget reserve in HB 83 was $109,446,663. He
called for discussion.
Number 500
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked if the committee was willing to
dive into the constitutional budget reserve at that point.
CHAIR BUNDE said he was ready to do so.
Number 506
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT SUGGESTED a TECHNICAL AMENDMENT to
page 5 line 25, concerning $1.2 million for a new Eagle
River elementary school road, and said that he would like to
see the money used for roads, even though it was probably
appropriated to schools.
CHAIR BUNDE said he could not speak to the correctness of
the list, as it was taken from the governor's list. He
examined the original HB 83, and asked Representative Vezey
to offer information on the project.
Number 518
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the best information the committee
had was the information in the bill, and that Representative
Kott was the first to question it.
MR. BADER SUGGESTED that DELETING the word "roads" from the
language in question and INSERTING the words "new
elementary" would probably cover the intended purpose, and
allow the money to be used for either purpose.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Kott if he would make such
a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT MOVED AMENDING page 5, line 25 to DELETE
the word "roads" from the language in question and INSERT
the words "new Eagle River elementary."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "If we could build a school for
$1 million, I'd say let's do it. I don't think we can."
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said the money must be for site
preparation, not a whole school.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if the committee had the original
information the projects were taken from. He said
Representative B. Davis was probably correct.
Number 555
JOE RYAN, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY,
testified in Juneau on HB 83. He said that the Anchorage
School District did not appropriate money for roads when it
built the school. Since that time, inflation had raised the
cost of roads to the price listed in HB 83, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT WITHDREW his AMENDMENT.
Number 562
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE MOVED an AMENDMENT to page 3, line 19
of the bill, to ADD $61,631,000 for phase two of a Fairbanks
North Star Borough high school.
CHAIR BUNDE RULED Representative Brice OUT OF ORDER.
Number 572
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY OBJECTED.
CHAIR BUNDE said, "Now, back to reality. Representative
Brice, would you like us to vote on that amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated that he did, indeed, want the
committee to vote on his amendment, when he had finished
reading it. He said his amendment also included changes to
page 1, line 5, increasing the total appropriation to
$170,811,963.
CHAIR BUNDE continued, "Any other discussion? May we vote
us back to reality?"
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY reminded the chair that she had
objected to the motion.
CHAIR BUNDE said that the committee would then vote.
REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS added, "I thought he was just
kidding, but if he's serious I need to know what he wants us
to vote on. Because if we're going to play that game then I
guess we could all start putting some out."
CHAIR BUNDE threatened, "If we're going to play that game,
we'll adjourn. If he wants $61 million for a high school in
Fairbanks, a noble cause, but..."
A roll call vote showed that those voting YEA were
Representatives Brice, and Vezey. Those voting NO were
Representatives Kott, Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia, Toohey,
Bunde, and G. Davis. The MOTION FAILED.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted for the record that he and
Representative Vezey had voted together on an issue, setting
a record.
TAPE 93-51, SIDE A
Number 026
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY MOVED PASSAGE OF THE BILL WITH
INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIR BUNDE heard OBJECTION to the motion, and called for a
roll call vote. After a brief interruption from
Representative Kott, the chair ordered the roll call vote to
resume. Those voting YEA were Representatives Olberg, B.
Davis, Nicholia, Toohey, Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, and Kott.
Representative Brice voted NO. The MOTION PASSED.
ADJOURNMENT
Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE
adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|