Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/30/2003 03:18 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 30, 2003
3:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 259
"An Act relating to public school transportation, and to the
minimum wages for school bus drivers; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 259(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 269
"An Act establishing the Safety Code Task Force; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 269(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 272
"An Act relating to motor vehicle dealers."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 47
"An Act prohibiting discrimination by credit rating or credit
scoring in certain insurance rates; and providing for an
effective date."
- REMOVED FROM AGENDA
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 259
SHORT TITLE:PUPIL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING/DRIVER WAGES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GATTO
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/11/03 0934 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/11/03 0934 (H) EDU, L&C, FIN
04/16/03 (H) EDU AT 7:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/16/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(EDU)
04/16/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/16/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
04/22/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/22/03 (H) Moved CSHB 259(EDU) Out of
Committee
04/22/03 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
04/23/03 1069 (H) EDU RPT CS(EDU) NT 1DP 3AM
04/23/03 1069 (H) DP: GATTO; AM: WILSON, OGG,
SEATON
04/23/03 1070 (H) FN1: (EED)
04/30/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 269
SHORT TITLE:SAFETY CODE TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DAHLSTROM
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/15/03 0985 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/15/03 0985 (H) L&C, FIN
04/28/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/28/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/28/03 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/30/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
EDDY JEANS, Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Education Support Services
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 259.
MELODY DOUGLAS, Chief Financial Officer
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments, suggested an amendment,
and responded to questions during discussion of HB 259.
MIKE FISHER, Chief Financial Officer
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
259.
STEVEN KALMES, Director
Transportation
Anchorage School District (ASD)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 259.
LARRY WIGET, Executive Director
Public Affairs
Anchorage School District (ASD)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 259.
BRUCE JOHNSON, Director
Quality Schools/Quality Student Services (QS2)
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
259.
ZACK WARWICK, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As staff to the sponsor of SB 180,
companion bill to HB 269, commented on proposed changes to
proposed Amendment 1 to HB 269.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-44, SIDE A
[Not on tape, but reconstructed from the committee secretary's
log notes, was:
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:18 p.m. Representatives
Anderson, Gatto, Crawford, and Guttenberg were present at the
call to order. Representatives Dahlstrom and Rokeberg arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 259 - PUPIL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING/DRIVER WAGES
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 259, "An Act relating to public school
transportation, and to the minimum wages for school bus drivers;
and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 259(EDU).]
Number 0021
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, speaking as the sponsor, said that HB 259
deals with student transportation, and that the governor intends
to cut the transportation budget by 20 percent. He opined that
20 percent is too big a cut for school districts to accept, and
that the alternative plan offered by HB 259 has the governor's
support. Under HB 259, he explained:
We take the [fiscal year 2003] FY 03 money that was
spent on student transportation and we essentially
give it to the districts to spend it any way they
want. If indeed they find efficiencies, they get to
keep the money and use the money in the classroom or
in any way they like. If they struggle and they have
to spend it all, well, then, they spend it all. But
because there is a dilemma, and that is simply a
choice between two undesirables, either you take the
FY 03 money and keep it or you go with the governor's
proposal, which is a 20 percent cut. Since the
governor supports this bill, I feel fairly certain
that he would not do anything to change it. Now, each
district gets a certain amount of money per student,
and as you increase enrollment, you get more money ...
for student transportation, much like you do in the
[foundation] formula.
Well, we've gone along with the [foundation] formula
for some time and agree that that is the mechanism
that we use: we like to, essentially, give money per
student. That's what happens in this bill....
Basically, it says, "Whatever you got in [FY] 03,
you'll keep." What will happen, as years go by, is
much the same thing that happens to the [foundation]
formula, and that is: as time goes by, ... someone
can certainly bring this legislation up and ask to
amend it and/or increase the funding per student to
take into account increased fuel costs, increased
insurance, the cost of new buses, wage increases, et
cetera, which gives us an opportunity - in the same
way we deal with the [foundation] formula - to simply
add money, per student, to this formula.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO continued:
Some people will gain more than others, I'm sorry that
that happens, but it does happen. And there didn't
seem to be a good way to make [transportation funding]
happen short of the basic way that we've done here.
And I believe firmly that it works pretty well. I
have support from [Matanuska-Susitna] Mat-Su [and] ...
Fairbanks. I talked to Carol Comeau for the Anchorage
district, and she said, as of yesterday, [that] she
had not taken a position on it because she wasn't
familiar with it yet - she would have to read it, and
maybe after that point take a position of whether she
liked it or not. But I haven't found any school
district that's said, "I've read it, I've talked to
you, and I don't like it." I haven't found that. I
bet it exists, but I haven't found it.
So I'd like you to approve [CSHB 259(EDU)], and
hopefully we want to move it on so that it meets with
a bill that will be coming from the Senate side, and
we have plans for attaching it the funding formula and
moving it through so that before the session ends we
have transportation funded through this bill [and] we
have the funding formula with the increases ....
Number 0378
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), said that the EED and the administration have
been working closely with Representative Gatto on HB 259, and
remarked that Representative Gatto gave a good explanation of
what the bill does. He pointed out that the current system is a
reimbursement system in which the EED outlines, through the
regulatory process, what a reimbursable expense is. For
example: "We set the minimum mileage that students are
transported for reimbursable purposes at one and a half miles;
you have to have eight students down a road to extend a route;
those sorts of things." He explained that currently, when
school districts need route extensions or want to add new
routes, they simply submit a request to the EED; if the EED
determines that the change is really needed, the EED approves it
and it becomes an expense to the state.
MR. JEANS remarked that under the current program, there is no
incentive for school districts to save money because they are
not able to retain money if they do find any efficiencies. In
addition, when school districts are prorated - as the governor's
budget recommends - when new routes are added, that cost is
spread across the state and "everybody pays for it." For
example, he added:
A district may be expecting 75 percent or 80 percent
reimbursement right now, but when we get into next
year, if we add 10-15 routes, that reimbursement level
is going to drop because we don't have any additional
funds. So the district's rate of reimbursement will
be reduced based on an increased need statewide.
MR. JEANS referred to what became known as Amendment 1, labeled
23-LS0767\W.1, Ford, 4/23/03, which read:
Page 2, lines 16 - 19:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Number 0623
MR. JEANS additionally mentioned a proposed amendment that would
change the effective date of the bill from July 1, 2004, to July
1, 2003. He relayed that the administration supports both
amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how many school districts don't
contract pupil transportation.
MR. JEANS said he would have to research that issue. He added
that a number of districts operate one route; that some
districts that have split programs - for example, Anchorage and
Kenai; and that some districts are 100 percent contracted - for
example, Mat-Su, Fairbanks, Kodiak, and Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether a few years ago, "didn't
we realign the contracts for bidding purposes so that we would
get some more competitive bids, and was there any efficiencies
built into ... that when that happened?"
MR. JEANS replied: "We did do that with the Railbelt area." He
said that he would argue that some efficiencies were achieved in
that instance because an outside contractor, First Student,
Inc., came into the state and bid. He noted that prior to that,
there was only one major provider in the state - [Laidlaw
Education Services ("Laidlaw")]. He predicted that additional
efficiencies may be achieved via future bids by First Student,
Inc., because the initial costs of getting into the state are
quite high. Because that company's bus fleet is only going to
be five years old when the contract expires in three years, he
said, he is hoping that the daily rates could be lowered a
little bit.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether school districts submit
requests to the EED to remove or shorten routes.
MR. JEANS said yes, adding that when school districts submit
requests for changes to routes, they are asked to go back and
evaluate existing routes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG expressed concern that even though
existing contracts are already in place, HB 259 will result in
pupil transportation being funded in another fashion than what
was anticipated when the contracts were signed. He indicated
that this might affect whether the money needed to fulfill any
existing contracts will come out of the classroom or whether any
exiting relationships with contractors will be altered.
Number 0871
MR. JEANS replied:
You're correct that districts do have those contracts
in place. As I understand it, every one of the
contracts has an escape clause based on the level of
state funding. In other words, if the state doesn't
fully fund the transportation request, districts have
an opportunity to open up those contracts and try and
get a better rate. This would happen even if the
program was prorated. Districts would still have that
ability; they are not limited to simply taking the
money out of the classroom. In those cases where we
have municipal school districts, they could back to
the municipality. Districts could also charge user
fees to cover that loss in state aid. So, there [are]
avenues available to [districts], but as long as the
state is providing 100 percent reimbursement, there's
no real incentive or reason for [districts] to look
for these other cost savings.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked: "Do you consider it, then,
[that] it would be an efficiency or [a] way to have gained more
control, by negating the contracts and having the school boards
do it themselves, to show those efficiencies? Do you think
that's a route that's appropriate here."
MR. JEANS replied:
Right now, the way the current system is set up, the
state says what the state's willing to pay for,
through our regulations. With this proposal ...,
districts would get a grant based on the current
amount that they're spending per student for
transportation services. Now, if this bill passes,
the [EED] would repeal all of its regulations, and
then it would be up to the local school board to try
[to] identify the efficiencies. Right now, we provide
reimbursement if a child lives beyond a mile and a
half. Is a mile and a half, or ... two miles, [or]
two and a half miles too far for a high school student
to walk? In some communities, yes, [and] in others,
no. But right now, the state reimburses that
regardless of your grade level. Those are choices
that are better left ... at the local level, not at
the state level.
Number 0994
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that HB 259 refers to $1,200 per
student. He relayed that he has students in the Fairbanks
school district that walk to school, as well as students that
live quite a distance - at the extreme measures of that borough.
He added that he has students in the entire "Denali borough"
from Cantwell to Anderson, and opined that very few of those
students get a chance to walk to school. Therefore, he
remarked, he is concerned about the per student dollar figure
and how it will be affected by the discrepancies between a
student living downtown and a student living in a rural part of
the road district.
MR. JEANS replied:
The per student dollar amounts are arrived at by
taking what the districts are going to be reimbursed
in the current year, [and] dividing that by their
total student population excluding their
correspondence students. So it's reflective of what
they're currently spending on a per student basis this
year. The one piece that this bill would not address,
that is currently built into our current system, is
inflation. And every one of the contracts have
inflation built into them, so that's another cost that
is simply passed on to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO surmised that Representative Guttenberg's
concern centers around taking care of students that are
handicapped or live far away. He offered that the FY 03
appropriation that school districts received included all the
money needed to transport all students to school in the way the
district wanted to. House Bill 259 doesn't change that, he
assured the committee, adding that the $1,200 amount listed in
the bill is simply a cap - no district shall receive more than
$1,200 per student - because some districts "charged" more than
$1,200 per student. In FY 04, School districts will get all the
money they spent previously in FY 03, he reiterated.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG clarified that his concern centers
around the flexibility of HB 259. Using a comparison between a
child that moves into the district across the street from a
school and a child that moves into the district 45 miles from a
school, he asked what happens then with regard to how the
funding provisions of HB 259 work.
Number 1147
MR. JEANS replied:
The assumption there is that you already have a route
going to [the area 45 miles from the school], and that
child will just be picked up on that route. I don't
believe a school district is going to put in a route
for one child. Right now we don't even reimburse for
that; you have to have a minimum of eight [children].
And as Representative Gatto just stated, this reflects
the systems that are currently in place that are
dealing with the transportation needs of every
district in this state. It simply takes it from this
reimbursable system and puts it into a grant system
... on a per student basis. The grant amount will go
up or down based on the student population change. So
if you have more students, you're going to get a
larger allocation in the subsequent year. If you have
... fewer students, your grant amount is going to go
down.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that according to his understanding of
HB 259, for every student that is added, the district will get
an additional amount of money regardless of whether the student
lives across the street or 100 miles away, and the school
district can do what it wants with that money - the decision
will be made at the local school district level. Currently, a
school district that has eight students living 100 miles away
from the school simply submits the transportation bill to the
state. He opined that the current system is unreasonable in
this regard. He added that what he really wants to do is put
more of the responsibility and accountability on the school
district itself, and have the state not be a part of deciding
what's fair, or how far is too far, or how old is too old, et
cetera, because those really are local decisions. What HB 259
does is allow the state to say to school districts, "Here's the
money, spend it however you think is appropriate."
Number 1264
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG offered his belief that this isn't the
first time that the state, possibly in conjunction with school
districts, has tried to build a more efficient system. He asked
what else has been done besides "trying to align the contracts."
MR. JEANS relayed that there has been past discussion proposing
to put the money into the foundation formula program and
increasing the base student allocation such that the $53 million
currently being spent on student transportation would simply go
into the foundation formula program. The problem with that
proposal is that the distribution of the funds for pupil
transportation based on the profile of each school district is
so different that that doesn't work. He remarked that that has
led to the creation of the proposal encompassed in HB 259.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that for "special needs kids," the
school district doesn't have a choice regarding whether to
transport them. Those children must be transported, he added.
MR. JEANS said that currently, school districts are providing
transportation to those with special needs; thus those costs are
included in this year's reimbursement. He relayed that the EED
has asked the Anchorage school district to consider alternatives
in order to alleviate the concerns regarding the "special needs
population."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that adding a "special ed" student
who lives far away brings with it an extra expense. He
suggested, however, that if the school district is already
getting money for such a student and that student no longer
needs the transportation, the school district gets to save that
money. He opined that although nothing can be predicted with
regard to where people will be located, on average, within a
district, transportation costs and funds will balance over the
long run.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD suggested, however, that it is that very
same inability to predict how many students will be living in
which areas that prompted the creation of the reimbursable
system rather than a grant system.
Number 1467
MELODY DOUGLAS, Chief Financial Officer, Kenai Peninsula Borough
School District, remarked that HB 259 does provide for more
funding for "K-12" transportation than is outlined in the
governor's budget, and for that she is appreciative. She went
on to say:
I also appreciate that one intent of this bill is to
allow districts to spend any savings realized through
this method in the classroom. (Indisc.) in our case,
with a continued declining enrollment, I think that
situation is highly unlikely. I appreciate the
concept that this is a snapshot in time for
calculating funding for ... transportation. I'm very
concerned about how we'll go forward after this year.
I think that with contracts ... currently in place,
certainly, we could ask to have those contracts opened
and see what we could do about negotiating, perhaps,
some savings. I feel that the contractors have
(indisc.) fuel costs and increased labor costs that
they would try to (indisc.), so I don't know that that
process would be particularly successful.
[A] comment was made earlier about districts
negotiating contracts to line up so that we might have
some leverage in the negotiation process; I think
we're in the fifth year of a seven year contract, so
it would be about two years out that ... the districts
around the state could align for that purpose. My
particular comment - or concern - is in relationship
to the special services - special needs children - and
how those costs or future routes would be addressed.
I also am concerned ... [that] the system's costs that
we incur are the same whether we have one child on a
bus or we have a full bus.
So we unfortunately are in the position of still
trying to analyze our data, not expecting to be
looking at numbers from this perspective; we're having
to reach into some interesting spreadsheets, trying to
pull numbers together, so that we can have some viable
information for the legislature to consider. At this
point, I would respectfully ask that an amendment be
made to create a task force to study this matter, so
that we can deal with future changes.
And I understand that with the method in place [in the
bill], that we're based on the current year, which
takes into account all of the aspects of funding, and
just prorating it on a per pupil basis. And on the
face, that's a valid way to look at it but, again, I'm
concerned about the future. If we were able to
establish a task force whereby we put together a plan
to deal with these issues by December of this year,
then the next legislative session, perhaps, could
address that. Again, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to comment on HB 259 ....
Number 1600
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised that declining enrollment such
as is being experienced in the Kenai school district makes
transportation costs less flexible, with regard to perhaps
changing existing contracts, because the routes are the same but
there are less children on those routes.
MS. DOUGLAS agreed, adding that there are certain things that
can be done, though, such as route evaluation. She said that
her school district is doing everything it can to deal with the
declining enrollment. She opined that HB 259 "would be an
extremely quick turnaround to implement a change of this nature
to have in place for schools to start in August; so, again, I'm
asking for consideration to find a way to address these unique
needs that are different amongst districts in the state."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Douglas whether the current
contract in her school district has compensation increases built
into it.
MS. DOUGLAS said there is a clause that addresses an inflation
factor of 1.9 percent, but other than that she is not that
familiar with the contract.
Number 1710
MIKE FISHER, Chief Financial Officer, Fairbanks North Star
Borough School District, thanked the committee for the
opportunity to comment. He said that his school district
reluctantly supports HB 259 because it is afraid of the
alternative. He went on to say:
We've been beat up over pupil transportation contracts
and costs the last few years, and this bill appears to
be an easy way to simplify how the state deals with
the issue. But it may be too easy. ... While
something can be said for the correlation of ADM
[average daily membership] to busing costs, it still
leaves a lot of complex issues for districts to deal
with such as ... the inflationary adjustments that are
typically included in a long-term contract. We could
get rid of the CPI [Consumer Price Index] adjustments
in future contracts, but we would just be paying a
higher static rate from year one of the contract.
We also {have] changes in ridership that do not
correspond to ADM changes; for instance, ... changes
in ridership due to special education busing, boundary
changes, school openings, [and No Child Left Behind
Act of 1996 (NCLB)] and other mandates. ... The
current cost of special education routes may be
imbedded in the base, but increased special ed
ridership, absent any overall increase in ADM, will be
tough to absorb. But you have all heard ... these
arguments before, and they do not individually
preclude any change in how the pupil transportation is
funded. They just make it a more difficult process.
And we certainly don't have all the answers either.
... I understand that the vision is that the districts
will be able to become more efficient and use those
savings in the classroom, and the reality is our
district will first look at (indisc.) efficiencies,
then we'll start cutting services, and then we will
take [money] out of the classrooms to subsidize
transportation services. ... Since I do not anticipate
a willingness of future legislatures to increase the
per ADM rate, I believe this bill will impact the
classroom instruction beginning next year. Current
competitive contracts were let two years ago, and the
closeness of the bids confirmed that we are paying a
fair rate for the services. We may not like the
price, but it's the market rate.
Number 1796
MR. FISHER continued:
And that's not unique to the busing; ... I shudder
every time I go to a full priced movie, talk to [an]
attorney, or fly to Juneau. But if you ... are
getting a fair price, then the only other option to
look at is what services you're asking your contractor
to provide. And so really, the only way to save money
or absorb cost increases will be to combine and cut
routes. And so in an effort to fill seat capacity,
which is largely dependent on drive time, we'll
probably stop busing students living past some sort of
arbitrary line or distance from their ... school. ...
We may be able to cut routes if buses do not have to
drive to an outlying residential area, but this is
cutting services, this is not efficiency.
But the cutting of services leads me to one of my main
concerns with the bill, and that is, what is the
intent of the language change in [proposed AS
14.09.020]. ... Because private schools have been
willing to change their school bell time, it currently
costs almost nothing to provide private school
transportation services in Fairbanks, and we were able
to use the excess capacity during certain times or
route sections to provide some busing services but, as
mentioned, that'll probably change. ... If we cut
services and combine routes, excess capacity will
disappear, and we will most likely not be able to
continue to bus private school children without
incurring additional costs.
And it would probably not be out of the realm of
possibility for a lawsuit to be filed. ... Does this
language change mean that the state wants no part in
interpreting the state constitution with [regard] to
transportation of school children to nonpublic schools
at public expense. ... Public perception is that the
Fairbanks school district was involved in a lawsuit
with private schools over busing back in 1993, and
actually it was the state and the Fairbanks private
schools that had the legal issues, not our district.
We were directed by the commissioner of [the
Department of] Education to continue busing private
school children.
MR. FISHER concluded:
So we'll gladly continue to bus private school
children as long as it does not impact public school
services, but that service may be reduced or
eliminated in the future if necessary to cut
transportation costs. So I just hope the state will
defend this position. Thank you for your time.
Number 1903
STEVEN KALMES, Director, Transportation, Anchorage School
District (ASD), thanked the committee for the opportunity to
testify, and said that he needed to start out his testimony by
reminding members that school buses are the safest form of
transportation in the United States today. He stated that 98
percent of the children that are injured or killed on the way to
and from school are either "walkers, kids riding bikes, riding
with parents, or riding with teenage drivers." He went on to
say:
Earlier, it was mentioned that many districts support
House Bill 259. I think you find that because of the
either/or situation here: it's easier to say that
we're willing to talk about [HB 259] rather than
losing 25 percent of our budget next year. The other
big premise ... of [HB 259] is that all school
district transportation operations are inefficient.
The governor, in his message, said that we could cut
25 percent and not eliminate any rides. I think
that's an extremely inaccurate statement.
As far as incentive to save money, in Anchorage I've
worked for five superintendents, and my direction from
every one of those superintendents has been to run an
efficient transportation operation so that we can put
as many dollars as possible into the classroom. Some
issues that need to come to the table: In Anchorage,
37 percent of our buses are used to transport
handicapped students, and that's 5 percent of the
population of students that are provided
transportation. That transportation is required by
state and federal law; ... if transportation is
required in the child's individual educational plan,
we've got to provided it - there's no two ways about
it.
Number 1983
MR. KALMES continued:
So that leaves ... 95 percent of our kids, who ride 63
percent of our buses, for the reductions. We don't
have -- the FY 03 level will reduce our budget about
$650,000. We're not going to find $650,000 in
efficiencies, so we will reduce rides or we'll impact
the classroom next year. Some of the things that are
also concerns in the future: our contracts are [in]
place until 2006. We did line up with Fairbanks and
Mat-Su and wrote common language, and did have more
bidders and, as Mr. Fisher indicated, the prices were
close. I think that is the price of transportation,
what we're currently paying [on] the Railbelt.
We're going to see increased costs for labor, for
fuel, and for equipment; that goes on every year -
when we buy buses, we see increases every single year.
And right now, we have horrendous turnover with bus
drivers, and I think that has increased across the
state; we have about 40 percent turnover just during
the summer months. Some years are worse than others.
In my years in the Anchorage School District, we've
had turnover as high as 100 percent over the course of
one school year. That's not a good way to run an
operation. We need to pay our drivers a reasonable
wage so that they'll continue to work for us.
The big sales pitch on this bill is that we can keep
the money we save. Well, ... I submit that we're not
going to be able to keep any money in Anchorage -
we're going to be reducing routes. So the budget
shortfalls will translate to reductions in service or
will impact the classroom in the out years. My
concern about this is, this is a very complex issue
and we're trying to solve it in simple terms; ADM is
probably not the way to do it, but it is easy.
MR. KALMES concluded:
We're committed to [working] with the [EED] to find a
more equitable way to implement a way to take care of
this, but the way it's set up now, the 95 percent of
our kids that ride 63 percent of our buses will take
all of the cuts. And we're concerned any time we have
to reduce transportation, reduce service, and have
kids walk to school - they're much less safe.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that Laidlaw is continuously
advertising open positions in the Fairbanks area. He asked
whether the situation is similar in Anchorage.
Number 2081
MR. KALMES said that it has been, adding that in the last five
years, there has been an increase in the turnover and more
difficulty attracting and retaining drivers - the wages for
drivers have not increased significantly over the years and the
economy has not gotten any better. There are other jobs in the
community that are simply more attractive.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Kalmes whether he feels that
the FY 03 allocation has been sufficiently equitable to provide
a base for years to come, which is what HB 259 would do.
MR. KALMES replied:
The way we're currently reimbursed, it's based on ...
regulations and the cost of student transportation.
Years ago, we used to be funded out of supplemental
appropriations - there wasn't a separate appropriation
for transportation - and so every year, districts
never knew what the transportation reimbursement would
be until September, when we got the check. So the
separate appropriation was established so that we
wouldn't have an impact on the classroom every year.
We're going back ..., based on the discussions we're
having, to the way it used to be, so that shortfalls
in transportation will come out of the classroom.
It's a better system than what we had. I understand
the department's need to gain efficiencies across the
state; I think we've done some good things in the last
several years, and I think we ought to do them
statewide and we've offered our assistance to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, in follow up, remarked:
Well currently, the allocation is, like, $339 per
student now in Anchorage versus [$767] in Mat-Su. And
I don't want you to debate the merit of that,
necessarily, but I think the thrust of the legislation
is that that ... would be the basis for ... the future
unless there was significant change. ... I'm a little
bit troubled by that; that just makes this huge
assumption that the way it's done now is the correct
way to do it. And I guess I'm ... just kind of
concerned if you think ... that's true. Is the equity
in the system, currently, so we can rely on that?
Number 2181
MR. KALMES responded:
Well, I think what I said earlier is that saying that
districts will be able to keep what they save, in
Anchorage, I submit that we're not going to be able to
make reductions and save money that we can put ...
into the classroom. It's going to be the other way
around - we will be taking money from the classroom to
fund the shortfall. ... Can efficiencies be gained in
other districts? Well, the department says so. And
... has everybody done some of the things that we've
done on the Railbelt? I don't know; I'm not aware of
that. But I think by aligning contracts, by
consolidating some of the contracts, there may be some
savings in Bush areas ....
MR. KALMES, in response to whether the ASD supports HB 259, said
that the ASD thinks that HB 259 is a much better option than the
governor's proposal. He added:
We will work with the department to try to fix the
problem, but our problem is [with] tying [funds] to
ADM. We need to have some mechanism to fund increased
costs, especially for special education students.
It's 10 to 15 times more expensive to transport a
special education student. ... We transport up to
several hundred students on a regular bus per day.
Those numbers are drastically under that for special
education [students] simply because of their special
needs and [the] greater distances we have to drive;
$339 in anchorage won't cover the cost of intensive
needs student.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the state statute that ties
drivers' wages to minimum wages.
MR. KALMES said, "It's two times the Alaska minimum wage."
Number 2272
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "[Does] that have any impact on
what you pay in Anchorage?"
MR. KALMES replied, "Not yet; it will come into play next year
for the Anchorage School District and [in 2006] for our contract
operations."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked: "What are you paying now? Is it
above ...?"
MR. KALMES responded, "In Anchorage, we're paying below." He
added that the ASD starts at about $12 an hour for both district
and contract operations; when [the tie to] minimum wage goes
into effect, it will be a little over $14 an hour.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commended Mr. Kalmes. He acknowledged that
there is a dilemma, which is that there is a choice between two
undesirables. It is not a matter of finding a solution that
disqualifies both of the undesirables, because the governor has
the goal of cost containment. He said that he does wish there
was more money. However, there isn't. He stated, "We only have
the cut or this system, and I think most people, when they've
spent as much time as you have looking into what happened to the
system, [they realize] that this gives you more money than [the
governor's proposal]." There's really no guarantee that [the
governor's proposal] won't be cut again the following year, he
added, offering that at least with HB 259, with it being tied to
ADM, it is very similar to the [foundation] formula and is
therefore the better choice.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD likened the choice they are faced with
to, "Do you want to be shot today or hung in a couple of weeks."
He said he did not like the options he's been given. He posited
that there are a lot more questions to be asked, and mentioned
the transportation services for the "school for the deaf from
Wasilla to Anchorage." He opined that the state is mandated to
provide student transportation and, therefore, there should not
be a choice between a 20-25 percent cut, as the governor
proposes, and a cut that's coming down the road. He asked Mr.
Kalmes to suggest possible ways in which HB 259 could be
amended.
TAPE 03-44, SIDE B
Number 2347
MR. KALMES replied that the ASD's big concern is the special ed
piece because those costs are much greater than transporting
regular students. He added that tying funds to ADM is not
really a measure that affects pupil transportation. However, if
funding is tied to the actual number of students transported, it
might result in a more accurate number than just looking at the
total district enrollment. Not every district provides
transportation to the same percentage of students, so there's
some fluctuation when funding is tied to ADM.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that in Fairbanks, the district
supplies transportation to nonpublic schools. He asked whether
Anchorage faces a similar situation.
MR. KALMES said that over the years, the ASD has provided some
transportation, along regularly scheduled routes, to nonpublic
schools, adding that there is really only one nonpublic school
that has been accommodated by that practice. He explained that
kids ride to or parents take them to one of the schools, and
then as the bus is returning to the lot, it drops them off at
the nonpublic school. He mentioned that there have probably
never been more than 10 or 15 kids, out of the 18,000
transported, that are transported to nonpublic schools.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG mentioned that it is not as though
these problems have dropped out of the air today; these problems
have been worked on for a long time. He asked whether other
alternative plans have been on the table before.
MR. KALMES replied:
We have evaluated the regulations; several years ago,
... a task force was formed to look at the regulations
and see if there were ways that we could streamline
the regulations and ... get consistency across the
state. We had some discussion about allowable costs:
... what's allowable, what isn't, ... what's allowed
in different parts of the state, what's reasonable.
And then we've also, recently - our last run of
contracts - ... got together [and] we actually changed
the length of a couple of our contracts in Anchorage
so that they would coincide with Fairbanks and Mat-Su.
And we believe that that was positive; it brought
other bidders to the state and we have another large
company that's here now. So, ... those are some
things that we've done regionally. I think some of
those things could be done across the state as well.
Number 2225
LARRY WIGET, Executive Director, Public Affairs, Anchorage
School District (ASD), opined that Mr. Kalmes is able to explain
the needs of pupil transportation better than anyone else in the
state. He offered the following as a quote from what he called
the "Senate Finance Committee Annual Education Report":
To educate Alaska's children, they must first get
safely to school. Consistent, safe, and efficient
transportation is vital to the education process.
Pupil transportation is not cheap, but it is
essential. Money for transporting students frees up
funds for the classroom. If the state did not fully
fund these costs, districts would be forced to use
classroom dollars to pay for getting students safely
to school.
MR. WIGET then added:
When we're talking about funding at the 03 level,
we're not talking about fully funding pupil
transportation, we're talking about taking a hit next
year and even a greater hit for the year after that
and a greater hit down the road. In essence, these
will come out of classroom dollars. I know
[Representatives Rokeberg and Gatto] this morning were
in the [House Special Committee on Ways and Means],
and you heard testimony provided by Guy Bell
[Director, Division of Retirement & Benefits, who]
just talked about the 05 increases to the PERS [Public
Employees' Retirement System] and TRS [Teachers'
Retirement System], and while we don't have the
numbers that will impact us to this point in time for
TRS, he stated that the Anchorage School District
alone will have a hit of $3.5 million in 05. Take a
look at other bills and proposals from the governor
that are under consideration at this time - $150,000
for pupil transportation, $775,000 for tuition
payments for students - all these will ultimately have
a direct impact on the education of our students.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that in a recent e-mail he
received from Mr. Bell, the aforementioned numbers [regarding
PERS and TRS] might be closer to $7 million.
Number 2131
MR. WIGET said, then, "I rest my case; we need full funding for
pupil transportation."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what Anchorage's percentage of
special needs children is compared to the rest of the state.
MR. WIGET said he did not have the exact numbers, but surmised
that there are a greater number of such children. Referring to
the military bases around Anchorage, he noted that Anchorage is
also a "primary overseas assignment for people who have ...
special education students." He mentioned that the EED has
directed the ASD to provide transportation from Mat-Su to
students so they could attend the "Alaska State School for the
Deaf and Hard of Hearing" program in Anchorage," and thus are
currently transporting four students
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised, "Under the current plan,
you're ASD is reimbursed for those type of costs, and under this
plan, they wouldn't be."
MR. WIGET concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that Guy Bell had told the [House
Special Committee on Ways and Means] that when one does an
actuarial value, the future is determined by looking at the past
and then making projections. Representative Gatto said:
Likewise, ... every district in the state, is going to
look backwards and say: "What percentage of our
students were special ed? How much money did we
spend? What [do] our routes look like?" And the
assumption has to be - since I cannot predict the
future and you can't and the director can't - which
students will be coming in the district to change
that. We don't know. You might wind up being the
luckiest district in the state.
MR. WIGET pointed out, however, that it is a known fact that
costs are going up.
Number 2033
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO countered:
Yes they are, and we understand that. ... They're
going up in your district, my district, everyone's
district. We cannot simply separate out, and say,
"Certain districts are better than other districts;
certain districts might have higher costs." The point
of using ADM was it was a number that you recognize
what that number is. You receive a certain number of
dollars based on a specific number. It's quite simple
to do it that way. In the old way, you would just
say, "We have these additional costs," and submit it
to the state.
The state, ... the governor especially, is objecting
to that method. The governor's solution to his
objection is, as you know, a simple, straightforward
... 20 percent reduction. Now, we don't ... want that
alternative. No matter how much we argue about, "I
want plan three," we only have plans one and two, and
we want to make the best deal for one and two. And
maybe in the future, next year, we'll revisit this,
but we need to essentially have this in place before
we can revisit it. And that's why it's here.
MR. WIGET remarked that it will then be the legislature's policy
call on how to best fund education. In response to a question,
he replied:
I think, definitely, when Jim Clark [Chief of Staff,
Office of the Governor], makes a statement that the
governor supports this piece of legislation, a number
of people take that to heart. We're hoping, as we
indicated earlier, in working with the department as
this bill moves through the process, that there is
some flexibility to make some adjustments too.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he did not think they were limited
to just two choices.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked, "The Senate did account for this
in their budget." He said he hopes that there is time for HB
259 to be sent to the governor for his quick approval, and then
the legislature can be done with this phase and move on to
energize some other aspect of funding education. "As you know,
we do have a very major change in the formula that we're moving
forward, and we need to emphasize and concentrate an awful lot
of our efforts in that area, and even that has some amendments
and changes," he added.
Number 1866
BRUCE JOHNSON, Director, Quality Schools/Quality Student
Services (QS2), Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB),
thanked Representative Gatto for attending the AASB's recent
"fly in." He went on to say:
We have some concerns. We believe this is a policy
call. We're moving from one system of funding to a
grant program; that's clearly a policy call. How that
is formulated is of concern to us, and we would like
to see it impacted in some ways, particularly [as it
relates] to special education. We believe that there
is a trend in our state for ... those students that
are required to be transported to school by federal
law ... to reside in the hub areas or seek to move to
the hub areas - [Ketchikan, Juneau, Anchorage,
Fairbanks] - because ... the massive number of
services that some of these kids require, even beyond
transportation, just aren't available, readily, in
some of the rural communities.
We also recognize that the ADM piece is a difficult
one, particularly in [a] declining student enrollment
situation - fewer dollars coming in. If you take
"Alaska Gateway": we all know the highway system
there probably fairly well - it goes out so far and
turns around, and whether you pick up 10 students or
you pick up 20 students - and with "Alaska Gateway"
and declining enrollment, it's going to have a major
impact, plus we're starting from the perspective that
they've been capped and lose $100,000 kind of right
off the bat. It's very different in an urban area
such as Fairbanks - I understand they have about 140-
plus routes - if they lose 100 students they may
actually be able to make some tweaks and adjustments
to create efficiencies.
We recognize there may be a door "A" and a door "B."
What we're hoping is that maybe "B" can get a little
bit better before the end of this session, and that we
[can] work towards amending that in positive ways that
would mitigate some of the challenges that districts
are going to face, because I think it is clear that
these costs are going to go up, [and] they will impact
the classroom probably sooner rather than later. ...
CHAIR ANDERSON closed public testimony on HB 259.
Number 1747
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text
provided previously].
Number 1727
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
He referred to a memorandum by the drafter as a good argument in
favor of Amendment 1. He surmised that via Section 3, which
would be deleted by Amendment 1, Representative Gatto was making
the assumption that at a later date there would be an adjustment
to the formula.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that Amendment 1 is an attempt to
prevent "turf warfare," and suggested that Section 3 would
negate the value of HB 259.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised, then, that if Amendment 1 is
adopted, it would take an affirmative action on the part of the
legislature to make any future adjustments to the formula set
out in HB 259.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG removed his objection.
Number 1638
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he objected to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked that the effective date in Section
4, page 2, line 20, should be changed to July 1, 2003.
Number 1620
CHAIR ANDERSON asked whether Representative Gatto intends for
the change in the bill's effective date to be added to Amendment
1 as a friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated he did.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, after noting that he did not object to
changing the effective date, said that he objects to the removal
of Section 3 because then there would be nothing in the bill
authorizing an adjustment to the formula for rising costs.
Number 1578
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he objects to changing the
effective date.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced, then, that the change to the effective
date would be considered Conceptual Amendment 2, rather than
just a friendly amendment to Amendment 1.
Number 1567
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that Amendment 1, without any changes, is
before the committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 4:25 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.
Number 1563
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Gatto,
Rokeberg, and Anderson voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Guttenberg and Crawford voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
Number 1514
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment
2, to change the effective date from July 1, 2004, to July 1,
2003.
Number 1506
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He surmised that there had
been testimony which suggested that changing the effective date
would bring with it the possibility of matching the bill up with
the Senate version of the budget. He asked Representative Gatto
to confirm this.
[Representative Gatto's answer was inaudible.]
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is worried about implementing
"this" in the face of future contract costs and other variable
costs. He added, "This bill is being passed with a gun to the
school districts' heads ... - that really troubles me." He
indicated that he's supported fully funding pupil transportation
this year. He remarked that he is not sure why HB 259 came
before the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, and
added that he does have some reservations about the bill.
Number 1436
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 2.
Number 1429
CHAIR ANDERSON asked whether there were any further objections
to Conceptual Amendment 2. There being none, Conceptual
Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1405
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 259(EDU), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note.
Number 1391
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. He stated:
[There are] a few things involved here. One of them
is the efficiencies and where they're going. Another
one is, we are policy makers, ... the governor can do
what he wants, but we set policy, we do the ...
operating budget, and I think that's our
responsibility. And if we ... believe that student
transportation should be funded, we should do that.
And the governor can do what he may. It's my belief
that we should fund pupil transportation for a whole
slew of reasons. ... People have come to me, and I've
heard from two of my school boards and others that
they don't like this and they feel that there is a gun
to their head, and I don't like that either. And when
my time comes to vote, I'm voting to fund pupil
transportation, and that's my option - not to give it
away ... or negotiate it away - that's my privilege
and that's what I have here and that's what I'm
exercising.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said:
I think that even if this doesn't make the full 20
percent cut right off the bat, I don't think that was
a good option - I would have voted against that. I
think that eventually this will affect [the] safety of
our kids. And I think it's the wrong way to go; I'm
going to [be] against it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that he has serious reservations
about HB 259, and reiterated that he supports funding pupil
transportation. He remarked that the issues raised by HB 259
are extremely difficult and need to be exposed to public debate.
He added:
We have to resolve some of these particular issues
from a budgetary standpoint ... plus the needs ... of
the children of the state. There's certainly
inequities in this state; for example, I might be
tempted to add an amendment on [the] floor to provide
public transportation to all the private schools in
Anchorage, which would probably take up half the
budget of the whole Fairbanks school district, ... but
then we'd of course have to pay the bill - and there's
a lot of strange things going on in this state ....
I'm going to vote to pass this bill out, but I
probably have serious reservations about supporting it
....
CHAIR ANDERSON indicated that he agrees with the testifiers from
the school districts, but feels that the bill should be passed
on to the next committee of referral and debated more.
Number 1212
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Gatto,
Rokeberg, and Anderson voted in favor of reporting CSHB
259(EDU), as amended, out of committee. Representatives
Guttenberg and Crawford voted against it. Therefore, CSHB
259(L&C) was reported out of the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
HB 269-SAFETY CODE TASK FORCE
Number 1196
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 269, "An Act establishing the Safety Code Task
Force; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR ANDERSON, noting that no one wished to testify, closed
public testimony on HB 269
Number 1179
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, sponsor of HB 269, turned attention to
Amendment 1, labeled 23-LS0974\A.1, Bannister, 4/30/03, which
read:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "member"
Insert "state senator"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "member"
Insert "state representative"
Page 1, line 10, following "member":
Insert "of the administration"
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "one family"
Insert "a consistent set"
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "and"
Page 2, line 8, following "codes":
Insert "; and
(3) discuss and make recommendations on the methods
and authority for local governments to amend and
administer safety codes"
Page 2, line 12:
Delete "act as"
Insert "participate on"
Page 2, line 12, following "task force.":
Insert "The president of the senate and the speaker of
the house of representatives may jointly appoint the
following additional members to the advisory panel:
(1) a municipal building official;
(2) a municipal fire prevention official;
(3) a journeyman mechanical installer;
(4) a journeyman plumber;
(5) a journeyman electrician;
(6) a building developer;
(7) a representative of the Alaska Oil and Gas
Association;
(8) a representative of a pipeline operator;
(9) a representative from the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation;
(10) a representative of the Alaska Homebuilders
Association; and
(11) a representative from a regional housing
authority.
(d) If additional organizations, or industries,
trades, or professions show an interest in
participating, the president of the senate and the
speaker of the house of representatives may jointly
appoint additional members to the advisory panel.
(e)"
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Number 1164
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM indicated that the first four changes
made by Amendment 1 are clarifying changes; that the next 2
changes add a new proposed paragraph (3) - regarding
recommendations on methods and authority - to proposed
subsection (b); that the next change is another clarifying
change; and that the last two changes clarify who may
additionally be appointed jointly to the advisory panel, add a
new proposed subsection - regarding the possible addition of
other interested parties to the advisory panel - while splitting
current proposed subsection (c) into two separate subsections,
and reletter the remaining subsections accordingly.
CHAIR ANDERSON surmised that some of the aforementioned changes
proposed by Amendment 1 are in response to questions and
concerns raised at the bill's previous hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM agreed.
Number 0910
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
Number 0902
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He indicated that a
constituent of his had sent him an e-mail listing numerous
concerns about the bill. He suggested that Amendment 1 would
create two different groups, and is stacked in favor of one set
of codes over another. He opined that there is a huge
unfairness in the makeup of the initial membership, adding that
he is very concerned about that. He mentioned that he is also
concerned that Amendment 1 could create a very ungainly thing in
that the advisory panel could be bigger than the task force. He
said that he is not sure that all of the potential
representatives listed in Amendment 1 actually need to be
included, because he is not sure that their respective areas of
expertise will add anything in terms of developing and adopting
building codes. Turning attention to the portion of Amendment 1
that changes page 2, line 12, he asked Representative Dahlstrom
what replacing "act as" with "participate on" is intended to
accomplish.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM first pointed out that both the task
force and the advisory panel are already a part of HB 269, and
so Amendment 1 is not creating another group that didn't already
exist in the original legislation. On the issue of whether the
bill favors one set of codes over another, she reiterated that
"the officials and the people that were added," as listed in
Amendment 1, came from suggestions resulting from the bill's
last hearing. She added that the people she spoke to in
creating the list in Amendment 1 were building officials, people
from the "fire" industry, actual laborers, and union "folks."
She offered her belief that Amendment 1 is not weighted in favor
of either set of building codes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, in response to a question from Chair
Anderson, said that the purpose of the task force is to come
back to the legislature on the first day of the second regular
session with recommendations. Returning to Representative
Rokeberg's question regarding the change to page 2, line 12, she
indicated that the words "participate on" better reflect that
the advisory panel is composed of nonvoting members, whereas the
task force is composed of voting members.
Number 0569
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, in response to a question, said that he
maintains his objection to Amendment 1. He turned attention to
page 1, line 11, which says: (4) the following members
appointed jointly by the president of the senate and the speaker
of the house of representatives:". He said that he is not sure
he agrees with the requirement that the president and the
speaker must get together to decide who the task force members
outlined in subparagraphs (A)-(F) are; he called such a
requirement an extra burden given the speaker and president's
already large workload and the amount of time necessary to make
such a selection in an impartial fashion.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she is confident that the speaker
and president's staff will be very efficient in helping those
two gentlemen prioritize their workload so as to be able to
fulfill the requirements of HB 269. She added, "I also have
confidence in [the speaker and president's] ability to make
fair, good choices; they, along with the rest of us, raised
their hands and swore to do what was best for the state of
Alaska, and I have confidence that they will do that."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD suggested volunteering the minority
leaders to help in the selection process. He said that although
he has concerns because he does not know who leadership will
appoint to the task force, he assumes that the people appointed
are going to do the best job that they can.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he agrees with Representative
Crawford. He added that when the task force comes before the
legislature next January, "they are going to have to sell us on
what they did," and therefore he thinks that during the upcoming
task force meetings, everybody will be at the table, everybody
will have their say, and there will be a conscientious,
deliberative process.
CHAIR ANDERSON mentioned that he hopes there will be neutrality
on the task force.
Number 0238
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that "this issue" was before the
committee on at least three occasions last year, and that there
was a lot of hard work done in an attempt to fix "the whole
thing." He opined that a legislative solution was prevented
from going forward because of political inertia and a small
group of people. He said that he views HB 269 as "an end run
around that whole process" of adopting conforming legislation,
and posited that there is no reason why a solution could not be
figured out by the legislature, because, right now, there are
three different statutes that conflict with each other and
conforming legislation needs to go forward. He added:
I would like to see this process be fair, [and] go
forward; I appreciate Representative Dahlstrom's work
on this ..., but I think it needs to be balanced a
little better than it is right now. So I'm concerned
about that. I'd hate to have all this work put into
it, and [then] this bill somehow not make it to the
floor for some reason. ... I wouldn't want to see that
happen. ... It just doesn't seem to be fair. Wouldn't
you agree Mr. Chairman?
CHAIR ANDERSON said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG went on to say, "I think ... we really
need to make sure we get this balanced right." Turning
attention back to the issue of Amendment 1, he said he has no
objection to Amendment 1's first seven proposed changes, but
does have "heartburn" with the proposed additions to the
advisory panel. He suggested that because of the large number
of task force members representing various aspects of the
construction industry, the task force could wind up weighted
with members that have a predisposition to a particular set of
codes
TAPE 03-45, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that after action is taken on
Amendment 1, he would be offering another amendment that would
add, to page 1 of HB 269, "a municipal building official" and "a
fire prevention official" to the list detailing the makeup of
the task force. He opined that adding these two members to the
task force itself would balance it. And then, of course, there
would be no need to have either "a municipal building official"
or "a municipal fire prevention official" on the advisory panel;
therefore, those two members could be deleted from Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she would prefer to leave
Amendment 1 as is.
Number 0143
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested, then, deleting from Amendment
1 the language pertaining to the additional advisory panel
members.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM pointed out that according to the
language in Amendment 1, the appointment of any additional
advisory panel members is optional rather than mandatory, and
that according to the language in HB 269, the advisory panel
merely gives advice to the task force.
The committee took an at-ease from 4:55 p.m. to 5:02 p.m.
Number 0277
ZACK WARWICK, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, sponsor of SB
180, companion bill to HB 269, referring to the suggestion of
adding "a municipal building official" and "a fire prevention
official" to the task force, said:
First of all, the municipal building official does
have a vested interested; these are the people who
design the International [Building] Code, ... so there
is a vested interest and a hard sway towards that
side. We feel that the task force, as written now, is
completely even: three, one side; three, the other
side; and three, impartial. I know Representative
Rokeberg commented that there are [several] ...
construction-related trades there; ... it is my ...
understanding that the general contractors do prefer
the International [Building] Code - that is why they
were ... listed, as the three ... that are leaning
towards [the International Building Code.] If this
task force came back with a document that was leaning
or swaying in any direction, and it came out during
the task force that this task force was swayed, then
it's going to come back with a document that's going
to be completely worthless to the legislature, and
basically waist $20,000. And we feel that adding
those two to the task force would sway it in that
direction.
Number 0411
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his prior suggestions and
offered the following as an amendment to Amendment 1:
Remove "a municipal building official" and "a
municipal fire prevention official" from the advisory
panel; add to the task force "a municipal building
official" and "a fire prevention official; and delete
"nine" and insert "eleven" on page 1, line 6, of HB
269.
Number 0604
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM expressed her objection to the
amendment to Amendment 1.
Number 0627
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg and
Anderson voted in favor of the amendment to Amendment 1.
Representatives Guttenberg, Crawford, Dahlstrom, and Gatto voted
against it. Therefore, the amendment to Amendment 1 failed by a
vote of 2-4.
CHAIR ANDERSON observed that the question now before the
committee was whether to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG maintained his objection to Amendment 1.
Number 0651
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Guttenberg,
Crawford, Dahlstrom, Gatto, and Anderson voted in favor of
Amendment 1. Representative Rokeberg voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 5-1.
Number 0707
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 269, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
269(L&C) was reported out of the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0719
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|