Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/09/2002 09:37 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 09, 2002
9:37 AM
TAPES
SFC-02 # 91, Side A
SFC 02 # 91, Side B
SFC 02 # 92, Side A
SFC 02 # 92, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Pete Kelly convened the meeting at approximately 9:37 AM.
PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Co-Chair Dave Donley, Co-Chair
Senator Jerry Ward, Vice Chair
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Alan Austerman
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Also Attending: REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FOSTER; REPRESENTATIVE JOHN
DAVIES; LARRY LABOLLE, Chief of Staff for Representative Richard
Foster; EDDY JEANS, School Finance Manager, Department of Education
and Early Development; AMY ERICKSON, Staff to Representative Lisa
Murkowski; PATTI SWENSON, Staff to Representative Con Bunde; LORI
BACKES, Staff to Representative Jim Whitaker; JAN WRENTMORE; HEATH
HILYARD, Staff to Representative Jeannette James
Attending via Teleconference: From Nome: STAN LUJAN,
Superintendent, Nome Public Schools District; From Anchorage: BOB
EVANS, Employee, Anchorage construction company; TIM ROGERS,
Legislative Program Coordinator, Municipality of Anchorage; From an
Offnet Site: DAN BOCKHORST, Local Boundary Commission, Division of
Community and Business Development, Department of Community and
Economic Development; From Fairbanks: ROD COMBELLICK, Chief,
Engineering Geology Section, Alaska Division of Geological &
Geophysical Surveys, Department of Natural Resources; MILT WILTSE,
State Geologist and Director, Alaska Division of Geological &
Geophysical Surveys, Department of Natural Resources; From Kodiak:
GARY CARVER, Geologist
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 239-VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PILOT PROGRAM
The Committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the Department of
Education and Early Development, and the Nome Public School
District. The bill was held in Committee.
HB 521-MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT AREAS
The Committee heard from the sponsor and took public testimony. One
amendment was adopted, and the bill reported from Committee.
HB 332-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/SEXUAL ASSAULT COUNCIL
The Committee heard from the sponsor, considered and adopted one
amendment, and reported the bill from Committee.
HB 296-MUNICIPAL MERGER AND CONSOLIDATION
The Committee heard from the sponsor, the Department of Community
and Economic Development, and took public testimony. The bill
reported from Committee.
HB 53-SEISMIC HAZARDS SAFETY COMMISSION
The Committee heard from the sponsor, the Department of Natural
Resources, and took public testimony. The bill reported from
Committee.
HB 451-MUNICIPAL BOND REIMBURSEMENT
The Committee heard from the sponsor and the Department of
Education and Early Development. One committee substitute was
proposed then withdrawn from consideration. The bill was held in
Committee.
SENATE CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 239(HES)
"An Act establishing a pilot program for a regional learning
center."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FOSTER, the bill's sponsor, explained that
this legislation would provide the Bering Strait School District
(BSSD) and the Nome City School District with State funds to assist
in the development of a joint regional pilot program to enhance
educational opportunities for approximately 200 junior and senior
high school students from the 15 villages that comprise the BSSD.
He communicated that currently most BSSD village school graduates
remain in that village and have limited employment opportunities.
Representative Foster explained that on an annual basis, this non-
traditional boarding school style program, which would operate in
Nome, would provide job shadowing opportunities and courses, some
with a duration of only one or two weeks, to educate BSSD youth
about such things as how to find a job or how to work in retail or
the transportation industry. He stated that once State funds are
secured for the program, federal funds would be sought to assist
the program's continuing development.
Senator Wilken commented that a similar program is scheduled for
the Fairbanks area; however, he stated, the Fairbanks North Star
Borough has committed to pay 30 percent of the construction costs
of the program's facility and would additionally provide funding
for the program through the Borough's school district budget which
is supported by local property taxes.
Senator Wilken asked whether a pro forma plan has been established
to outline the program's direction and funding requirements. He
noted that the fiscal note specifies that State support would be
required for the program's initial four years with the expectation
that the program would be self-supporting after that time period.
Senator Wilken asked how the Bering Strait School District and the
City of Nome propose to support the program.
LARRY LABOLLE, Chief of Staff to Representative Richard Foster,
noted that responses to the local support inquiry indicate that
Nome would support the program with property tax revenue and that
both the City of Nome and the BSSD have the option to use federal
funds to support the program.
Dr. LaBolle asserted that this program differs from the Fairbanks'
program in that this program would require students to be housed in
Nome in order to be provided with opportunities for such things as
driver's education, water safety programs, as well as exposure to
expansive career opportunities that are not readily available in
their villages.
Senator Wilken specified that the May 1, 2002 letter from Dr. John
A. Davis and Dr. Stan Lujon of the Bering Strait School District
[copy on file], addressed to the Senate Finance Committee Co-
Chairs, does not identify the source of the fifth year funding. He
asked whether a financial analysis has been undertaken.
Dr. LaBolle commented that no additional information has been
provided.
Senator Green commented that a fifth year analysis has not been
provided because this is a four-year pilot program. She voiced
concern regarding how the State's school foundation formula funding
might be impacted since the districts would be, in essence, sharing
students. She stated that the Nome School District would be
required to hire additional teachers in addition to housing BSSD
students. She pointed out that this scenario is not provided for in
the school foundation formula funding. She reminded the Committee
that expenses for such things as a program coordinator, food,
travel, and house parents would also be a fiscal consideration. She
remarked that even though she considers this to be a good program,
fiscal concerns must be addressed.
Senator Wilken noted that the letter from the City of Nome to
Representative Foster, [copy on file] dated April 26, 2002,
specifies that "House Bill 239 is needed to assist in sending the
State portion of school funding with the students as they attend
school in the Bering Straits School District or in the Nome Public
Schools." He reiterated Senator Green's concern regarding how the
State school foundation formula funding would provide for this
program.
Senator Wilken declared that it is "uncomfortable" to consider
committing State funds to a project that has "no plan." He stated
that the Fairbanks North Star Borough has committed local taxes to
support the program in their community; however, this bill contains
no local participation requirement. He opined that this bill
"strikes at the very heart of the problem" that exists in the
State, as exampled by the practice in Rural Education Attendance
Areas to "spend as you wish, because there is no accountability,
there is no requirement to have any local participation so whether
it is sewer and water or schools," they want to do it because there
is no local commitment involved.
Senator Wilken announced that were this project proposed in
"organized Alaska," it would be accompanied by a plan that would
provide assurances as to how the pilot program would be able to
continue after the fourth year.
Senator Wilken argued that the expectation should be that this
pilot program is a good thing and would continue to operate through
local involvement and support, and not because "the people of
Alaska are being asked to shoulder the burden." He suggested this
program be set aside until a plan is presented that provides viable
funding assurances for the program after the fourth year.
EDDY JEANS, School Finance Manager, Department of Education and
Early Development, informed the Committee that the State's school
foundation formula funding would be allocated, as routine, to a
student's home school district, which he clarified, in this case
would be the Bering Strait School District. He communicated that
the BSSD would contract with the City of Nome School District to
provide the required services. He characterized this as a
"cooperative effort between the two school districts."
Mr. Jeans voiced the understanding that, in the program's fifth
year, other grants would be sought to support the program in
addition to the use of the State's school foundation formula
funding.
Co-Chair Kelly questioned whether the pilot project school would
qualify for the State school foundation formula funding as a result
of the two school districts' contractual agreement.
Mr. Jeans clarified that the students' home school districts would
transfer portions of their foundation formula funding and other
impact aid funding to support the pilot program.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that there is no language specifying that
this funding support must occur.
Mr. Jeans agreed, but reiterated that school districts are allowed
to enter into cooperative agreements.
Co-Chair Kelly asked Senator Wilken whether Mr. Jeans' comments
provided the pertinent funding information he requested.
Senator Wilken replied that, "they did not."
Senator Green asked whether the funding agreement between the two
districts could begin with the programs' first year rather than
with the fifth year.
Mr. Jeans clarified that the State funding requested in this bill
would supply "the seed money" required to initiate the program. He
continued that this "seed money" would provide the foundation upon
which to approach the federal government for further funding
assistance to address such needs as housing facility renovation
expenses and on-going operational costs.
Senator Green explained that the State school foundation formula
allots annual funds to schools based on the number of students
enrolled in that district, and she specified that this funding and
student/teacher ratio guidelines determine staffing needs. She
voiced concern that a long-term funding plan for this program might
be difficult to develop because of the uncertainty of this annual
funding amount.
Senator Green stated; however, that if the BSSD does not allocate
their money to hire District staff; they could support this project
by providing funds to the Nome School District to hire program
teachers.
Mr. Jeans commented that it has not been established that Nome
would be required to hire additional teachers. He stated that as
part of the program, students from the BSSD would be temporarily
housed in Nome as a means to supplement the educational
opportunities provided by their own District; however, he noted, no
mechanism exists to offset the boarding home expenses because these
students are disqualified from receiving boarding home stipends
since their participation in the program would be funded through
their home district. He stated that the boarding home expenses "are
really a core issue."
Mr. Jeans opined that the interaction between Nome and remote
village students would additionally provide cultural benefits.
Senator Green understood that three or four additional staff would
be required to facilitate the program. She stated that even though
the formula funding might not provide a funding mechanism to
support the boarding home component of the program, the Bering
Strait School Board could choose to allot money from its formula
funding to support it.
Mr. Jeans reiterated that he is not aware that additional
instructional staff would be required; however, he noted that the
Department of Education and Early Development's fiscal note
specifies that the program would require three staffers: one of
whom would be the program coordinator with the other two being
housing staffers.
Senator Green expressed the understanding that the additional
staffers would be teachers.
Mr. Jeans commented that the school districts could allocate
portions of their "discretionary money" to fund housing and other
program expenses.
STAN LUJAN, Superintendent, Nome Public School District, testified
via teleconference from Nome and informed the Committee that the
BSSD has Rural Education Attendance Area (REAA) funding available
to hire vocational education staff; however, those funds are not
currently being accessed because the District does not have a
vocational technical training facility. He continued that those
funds could be accessed to fund three staffers if BSSD students
were in this program.
Senator Green asked who would supervise the staff.
Mr. Lujan stated that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) would be
developed between the two school districts to address this issue.
He stated that in order for the REAA funds to be realized, the
instructors would be required to hold either a Type A or Type C
vocational education certification.
Senator Austerman asked whether local matching funds are required
to receive State foundation formula funding.
Mr. Jeans replied that Nome residents do contribute to the
education formula funding and that the BSSD "is an REAA and make
their contribution through impact aid."
Senator Austerman asked Senator Wilken to further explain his
concern about local funding participation in the Nome program.
Senator Wilken explained that his concern is that these school
districts have a $30 million school budget and are requesting an
additional $1 million of State money to undertake this pilot
program. He stressed that no information is included in the request
regarding how the Districts would fund the program after the four-
year pilot program funding concludes. He asserted that no business
plan has been provided and that no local community financial
support has been established.
Mr. Jeans responded that Nome is a "first class city" and is a
separate school district within the Bering Straits region. He
clarified that Nome does locally contribute funds to support
education.
Senator Wilken agreed and acknowledged that Nome contributes the
maximum four-mils in support of education.
Senator Hoffman stated that other entities, such as the Kuskoquim
School District, could contribute to this program, as there is
great demand for vocational training in the region, particularly in
the health care field. He detailed some of the possible non-State
funding opportunities that could materialize. He stated that many
entities support the program and that the benefits realized from
the State investment would offset the expense.
Senator Hoffman continued that this demonstration project at the
high school level could unite the region in retaining and training
local people for jobs rather than continuing the current "revolving
door" employment situation. He stressed that the success of the
program would spawn continuing support momentum from regional
entities.
Senator Wilken voiced appreciation for Senator Hoffman's comments
that "helped define" the program goals; however, he asked why the
region's students could not attend one of the three existing rural
vocational/technical schools instead of duplicating those efforts.
He voiced concern that this program might defer funds away from the
existing programs.
Senator Hoffman responded that there might be duplications of
efforts; however, there are benefits in keeping students within
their region as it provides support groups and a familiarity with
regional needs and job opportunities. He stated that some students
would suffer "cultural shock" if they were sent to a large
community which might result in them "dropping out" of the program.
He stated that regional job needs could more easily be addressed
were the program located within the region.
Senator Olson addressed the duplication of efforts question by
commenting that were this program looked at through the eyes of one
of the rural high school students from a small remote village
rather than through the eyes of someone from outside of the region,
it would be determined that a program in their region would be an
easier transition than being sent to a larger, unfamiliar, and
distant area.
Senator Wilken questioned whether a student who attends similar
programs in Nome rather than the existing program in Kotzebue would
recognize any differences. He stated that if the Committee decides
to support a new four-year pilot program in Nome, perhaps a similar
vocational technical program slated for construction in Bethel
should instead be located in Nome since facility infrastructure
already exists.
Senator Wilken reiterated his request for a program plan to be
provided to the Committee.
Co-Chair Kelly requested Superintendent Lujan to submit a program
plan to the Committee to address concerns about the bill.
Senator Olson commented that Kawerak, a Nome non-profit social
services agency, is successful at securing federal funds for
training programs and that a local union is also a strong supporter
of training programs. He reminded the Committee that the Bethel
vocational training center is, specifically a post secondary
education facility, whereas the Nome program would be provided to
high school students.
Senator Wilken acknowledged that the Nome and Bethel facilities
would serve differing age groups; however, he asked, "what the
difference is between the proposed Nome facility and the Kotzebue
tech facility, three years from now."
Dr. LaBolle communicated that the Kotzebue vocational technical
program is a concentrated post-secondary education program through
which students learn a trade. He continued that the program being
considered in Nome would expose high school juniors and seniors to
a variety of careers that the region supports. He stated that this
process would provide students with job shadowing opportunities as
well as introducing students to the needs of the regions'
industries.
Dr. LaBolle informed the Committee that individuals from "outside"
of the region are employed in the majority of the viable jobs in
the region, and he asserted, the goal of the program would be to
have area students choose an educational path which would allow
them to assume these jobs over time.
Co-Chair Kelly asked for confirmation that the BSSD would contract
with the Nome School District and thereby provide a portion of
their student foundation formula funding to the Nome School
District to support the program.
Dr. LaBolle replied that the BSSD would continue to claim BSSD
students in the community in which they reside, and that the BSSD
would contract with the Nome School District to provide the
educational services in "short block" programs. He asserted that
this is not a boarding school scenario.
Co-Chair Kelly requested Mr. Lujan to supply the Committee with a
more detailed plan. He voiced support for the concept, but stressed
that further information is necessary to address the Committee's
program funding concerns. He stated the need for the State to
undertake steps "to transition rural Alaska out of the past and
into the future."
Senator Hoffman informed the Committee that because many rural
residents "live off the land," many professionally trained
individuals regard these Native peoples as "the experts" when
regional geophysical and wildlife information is needed. He
asserted that residents of the area are well equipped to assume
area jobs once formal training is acquired, and he shared that one
of his relatives pursued a wildlife degree and is now gainfully
employed in the region.
Senator Wilken interjected for clarification that the BSSD has a
current school budget in excess of $30 million, and that Nome,
being a first class city, provides the maximum local funding match
required to receive State school foundation formula funds.
Senator Green suggested that a study be conducted to determine
whether State funds would be required to further the development of
this type of program in the State. She additionally requested that
the two school districts investigate methods to implement this
program without requiring State support.
Mr. Lujan stated that the BSSD receives annual grants amounting to
approximately $2.5 million and that future increases of grant
receipts would alleviate some of the District's demand for State
funds.
Co-Chair Kelly asked Mr. Lujan to include this type of information
in the project plan.
Co-Chair Kelly ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
SFC 02 # 91, Side B 10:24 AM
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 521(CRA)
"An Act relating to municipal improvement areas."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
AMY ERICKSON, staff to Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair of the
House of Representatives Labor and Commerce Committee which
sponsored this bill, informed the Committee that this bill proposes
language clarification to address "certain ambiguities in current
statute relating to municipal improvement areas" by specifying that
municipalities could use general obligation and revenue bonds for
"tax increment financing." She stated this bill also widens the
definition of "a blighted area;" thereby providing for increased
redevelopment opportunities. She continued that these changes to
existing law would increase a community's ability to "shape" a
comprehensive development plan and she asserted, "that successful
urban renewal projects are most successful when the State commits
its resources to property improvements and new developments."
Amendment #2: This amendment deletes "and general obligation bonds"
and inserts "general obligation bonds, and other forms of
indebtedness" in Section 1, line 8 of the bill to read as follows.
The municipality may issue the bonds as general obligation
bonds or as revenue bonds or as a combination of revenue
bonds, general obligation bonds, and other forms of
indebtedness.
Senator Leman moved for adoption of Amendment #2.
Co-Chair Kelly objected for discussion.
At ease 10:28 AM / 10:28 AM
Co-Chair Kelly withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment #2 was ADOPTED.
AT EASE 10:30 AM / 10:31 AM
[Note: Equipement recording difficulties prevented the following
segment of the meeting from being recorded.]
BOB EVANS, a representative of an Anchorage construction company,
explained the differences between an unimproved area and a blighted
area.
Senator Green asked whether this legislation changes the public's
involvement in the process.
Mr. Evans responded that it does not.
Senator Ward asked whether land located adjacent to a vacated
trailer park in a designated blighted area would be affected by
this legislation.
Mr. Evans responded that while this in not the intent of bill; the
land's owner could participate in a joint venture to improve the
area with such things as construction of a road, which would
increase the value of the adjacent property.
Mr. Evans responded to a question from Senator Ward by stating that
the language in this bill clarifies the ambiguity.
Senator Ward asked whether a municipality should use general
obligation (GO) bonds or revenue bonds to address blighted
property.
Mr. Evans responded that a city could use any form of indebtedness
to pay for revenue bonds.
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator, Municipality of
Anchorage stated that this legislation would allow incremental
taxes to be used to fund public purpose projects. He stated that
the city would support the allowed funding options either with
local taxes or with collateral.
Senator Ward asked whether these GO or Revenue bonds could be used
to support other projects.
Mr. Rogers replied that the money would be designated specifically
for public projects.
Co-Chair Kelly ordered the Bill to be HELD In Committee.
[This bill is re-addressed after the recess.]
RECESS TO CALL OF CHAIR 10:39 AM / 5:58 PM
[NOTE: Recording resumes.]
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 521(CRA)
"An Act relating to municipal improvement areas."
[This bill was addressed earlier in the meeting.]
Senator Green offered a motion "to move HB 521 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note."
There being no objections, SCS CS HB 521(FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with a previous zero fiscal note, dated April 22, 2002
from the Department of Community and Economic Development.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 332(FIN)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; relating to the
council's duties; placing the executive director and staff of
the council in the exempt service; and providing for an
effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
PATTI SWENSON, Staff to Representative Con Bunde, the sponsor of
the bill, explained to the Committee that this bill would extend
the sunset date of the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault (CDVSA) to June 2006. She asserted that the Council
provides an essential service to victims of domestic violence and
to perpetrators. She stated that the accompanying fiscal note
details the expenses that would be incurred were the Council not
extended, and she noted that the bill includes a provision that
would change the status of CDVSA employees to exempt as suggested
in the Alaska Division of Legislative Audit report [copy on file]
dated October 31, 2001
Amendment #1: This amendment inserts a new bill section to read as
follows.
Sec. 4. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended
by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION FOR POSITIONS COVERED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS. This Act does not terminate or modify the terms of
a collective bargaining agreement in effect on the effective
date of this Act. As soon as any collective bargaining
agreement covering positions affected by secs. 1 and 2 of this
Act expires, those positions shall be considered exempt
positions as provided in secs. 1 and 2 of this Act.
Senator Wilken moved for adoption of Amendment #1.
Senator Green objected for discussion.
Senator Wilken stated that Representative Bunde's staff would
explain the amendment.
Ms. Swenson announced that this amendment contains transition
language to allow current staff to retain their classified status
until the current labor contract expires in July of 2003. She
furthered that this amendment provides for notice to employees;
thereby protecting the State from legal challenges.
Senator Leman asked whether the inclusion of this amendment would
require a title change
Ms. Swenson replied that a title change would not be required.
Senator Green withdrew her objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
Senator Green moved to report "House Bill 332 out of Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes."
There being no objections, SCS CS HB 332 (FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with previous fiscal notes from the Department of Public
Safety, Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, dated
February 4, 2002 in the amount of $9,725,200; a fiscal note from
the Department of Public Safety, Batterers Intervention Program,
dated February 4, 2002 in the amount of $320,000; and a fiscal note
from the Department of Public Safety, Victims for Justice, dated
February 4, 2002 in the amount of $246,000.
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 296(JUD)
"An Act relating to mergers and consolidations of
municipalities."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
LORI BACKES, Staff to Representative Jim Whitaker, the bill's
sponsor, informed the Committee that this bill contains language to
correct "perceived unfairnesses in statute in regard to the
consolidation petition process as well as the election process" for
municipalities.
AT EASE 6:02 PM / 6:03 PM
Ms. Backes commented that some municipalities have experienced
difficulties in following current State statute procedures. She
exampled that currently there is no time limit imposed for the
gathering of signatures on a consolidation petition and that this
bill imposes a limit of 365 days. She stated that this time frame
is necessary because some petitions have circulated for up to five
years, and at the time the petition was verified, it was found that
many of the signers no longer resided in the municipality.
Ms. Backes explained that Sections 2 and 3 specify that a
consolidation question "must be approved by the voters within the
borough but outside the cities when it is a consolidation of a
borough with one or more cities within it, and must also be
approved by the voters in at least one of the cities." She
furthered that these two sections provide for a city "to opt out"
of the consolidation process when there are more than two cities
within the borough identified on the consolidation petition. She
stressed that "this opt out language" must be included in the
petition. She stated that the process of consolidating two or more
cities within a borough also must be approved by a vote of the
people.
Ms Backes summarized that the goal of this bill is "to allow each
individual city, the voters within each individual city, and the
voters outside of the city but within the borough to have their own
vote of self-determination as to whether they want to be a
consolidated community or not."
Ms. Backes noted that Section 4 exempts the new petition language
from applying to a petition or a vote on a petition filed before
the effective date of the bill.
Senator Green asked why the language changes in Sections 2 and 3
are necessary.
Ms. Backes responded that current statute specifies that a petition
for consolidation must be approved by a majority of the voters
within both the city and the borough. She noted that currently the
entire petition for consolation would fail in the instance where
the voters outside of the city but within the borough approve the
consolidation but one of two cities proposed to consolidate does
not approve of the merger. She continued that the new language
would permit the one city to remain unconsolidated, but would allow
the other parties to continue the consolidation process. She
reiterated that this "opt out option" language must be specified in
the petition.
Senator Hoffman opined that this "self-determination opt out"
language should also be considered for communities that might not
want to become part of a "mandatory borough."
DAN BOCKHORST, Local Boundary Commission, Division of Community and
Business Development, Department of Community and Economic
Development, testified offnet to voice opposition to components of
the bill that would alter the outcome of a consolidation election.
He stated that current law specifies that a simple majority vote
would determine the outcome of a merger, and that the proposed
legislation would establish "de facto voting districts" for each
city and for voters within the borough but outside of a city. He
stated that the proposed process "weights the vote of residents of
small districts more heavily than the vote of residents of populace
districts." He exampled that a vote by the City of Kupreanof with a
population of "less than one-half-of-one-percent of the total
voters" of the City of Petersburg, in opposition to the merger of
these two adjoining cities in Southeast could block a consolidation
or merger even if 99-percent of the voters in the City of
Petersburg support it. He stated that the Department's position is
that this bill's language "would disregard the will of the majority
of the voters about their preferred form of local government."
Mr. Bockhorst identified contradictory elements within the bill's
components, particularly Section 3, lines 26 and 27. He furthered
"that the provisions of the bill are intended to be consistent with
the voting requirements for annexation specified in AS
29.06.040(c)(1); however, there is absolutely nothing in the
reference statute that provides for de facto voting districts." He
stated that, "the statute provides for the exact opposite: approval
of a local option annexation by a simple majority of the votes in
the affected area." He exampled various de facto voting scenarios
whereby the proposed language would incur a contradictory
situation.
Mr. Bockhorst continued that the proposed bill "would reflect a
major departure from constitutional principles and established
legislative policy" in which State statute "specifies a minimum of
local government units and encourages the prevention of duplication
of tax levying jurisdictions." He stated that this bill "would
perpetuate inefficient, inequitable, and ineffective local
government structures resulting in duplication of government units
and tax levying jurisdictions regardless of the will of the
majority of the local voters." He stated that the current
legislation has, for 30 years, allowed for "harmony" with the
principles of the State Constitution as well as "efficiency and
fiscal accountability in the local governments." He stated that the
proposed bill would hinder that forward progression and notified
the Committee that the Local Boundary Commission has issued a
formal statement, dated May 1, 2002, [copy on file] that opposes
the proposed legislation.
Ms. Backes expressed awareness of the Local Boundary Commission's
concerns; however, she stressed that the bill's sponsor strongly
supports the people's right to self-determine what type of
community they wish to live in. She elaborated that this bill
essentially prohibits "a hostile takeover" of one community by
another. She presented examples of this scenario.
Senator Hoffman concurred with the sponsor's reasoning, and
asserted, "that self-determination should the most important factor
in self-government."
Senator Green noted that within a relatively short distance from
the Mat-Su area where she resides, there are four separate
communities, each with their own governmental offices. She
questioned whether the original intent of the current regulation
was to eliminate or discourage duplication of local government
services in the same or similar areas.
Ms. Backes responded that the original intent of the regulation was
not to prevent duplication; however, she clarified, "that is the
intent of consolidation or unification."
Senator Green opined that the reason for establishment of the Local
Boundary Commission was to prevent duplication. She surmised that
the proposed legislation would "do away" with that directive.
Ms. Backes clarified that rather than blocking consolidation or
mergers or encouraging the duplication of services, the intent of
the proposed legislation is "to merely make the voting and petition
process more fair." She asserted that Alaska's Constitution calls
"for the maximum local self-government with the minimum of local
government units," and mandates that the Local Boundary Commission
consider the consolidation of these governments. However, she
insisted, this should not be "forced over the will of a residents
of that area."
AT EASE 6:18 PM / 6:19 PM
Co-Chair Donley commented that at the time of Statehood, the goal
"was that all of Alaska would be organized into some form of local
government;" however, some people have resisted because they do not
want to pay local taxes. He reminded the Committee that a few years
prior at public hearings regarding education, many people voiced
that they did not want to contribute "a penny to educate their
children" or to support local services. He asserted that this
position is not fair to the people of Alaska who do pay local
taxes, and it is "clearly" not attuned with the vision of the
drafters of Alaska's Constitution. He stated that Alaska is the
only State that does not have widespread governmental organization.
He noted that some communities do not provide funds to employ a
local police staffer, and that local services are not provided
without some sort of outside assistance. He voiced concern about
any proposal that discourages inclusion of people in local
governments because, he opined, in the long run, this is the
direction the State must go.
Senator Wilken voiced uncertainty as to how to establish a balance
in this legislation, as "it is a one size fits all" type of bill
that, while addressing the needs of one, harms the needs of
another.
Senator Olson characterized this legislation as "setting another
layer of government out there." He contended that multiple and
overlaying State, federal and local governments result in non-
productivity, and he stressed that the costs associated with this
duplication usually "fall onto the shoulders of the private
sector." He voiced that the possibility of a larger community's
"hostile takeover" of a smaller community is "somewhat
troublesome."
JAN WRENTMORE, Resident, City of Skagway, informed the Committee
that this is an important bill for Skagway because it supports the
issue of self-determination. She informed the Committee that
Skagway, the oldest incorporated city in the State, is self-
sufficient, has real estate, tourism and sales taxes, and funds 52-
percent of the community's education needs. She stated that
townspeople were disturbed to receive a Local Boundary Commission
determination stating that Skagway is viewed as not being self
sufficient, that the community's government is inefficient, and
that the residents do not make sufficient contributions. She
contended that this legislation would allow residents to vote on
whether they desire to merge with another community. She continued
that in some situations, mergers or consolidations might not
increase efficiencies in government as differing communities may
have different lifestyles, distance might be an obstacle to
efficiencies, and communities might become polarized due to
differing "ethics" regarding major industries such as tourism. She
urged the Committee to consider the affect this legislation would
have on communities.
Senator Green stated that, as part of the petition process, the
Local Boundary Commission grants the authorization for a
consolidation or merger petition to be circulated. She asked
whether permission to petition could be granted without the express
approval from the affected communities, which she characterized as
a "hostile consolidation" situation.
Mr. Bockhurst replied, "that a petition may be initiated by a host
of different parties; some of which might be construed to be
hostile and some not be construed to be hostile." He continued that
in most situations, it is impossible to have 100 percent support
for a consolidation or merger proposal; however, the Commission
endeavors to consider the broad public interest as intended in its
Constitutional creation.
AT EASE 6:31 PM / 6:34 PM
Senator Olson asked Mr. Bockhorst how this legislation would affect
new boroughs.
Mr. Bockhurst stated that "this legislation directly does not
affect the incorporation of new boroughs from an area within an
organized borough, but technically, a consolidation of a city in a
borough results in the incorporation of a new borough so in that
sense, it would affect the creation of boroughs." He explained that
State law specifies that "the incorporation of a borough government
is subject to area-wide voter approval, and this bill certainly
would represent a significant departure from that practice if it
were applied to an organization of a borough from the unorganized
territory of Alaska;" however, it "would not affect a new borough
from an unincorporated area of the State."
Senator Olson voiced that perhaps an amendment should be considered
"so that it is applicable to the new boroughs."
Senator Austerman moved to report "Senate CS for House Bill 296,
Judiciary, from Committee with individual recommendations and zero
fiscal note."
Co-Chair Donley objected.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Leman, Senator Olson, Senator Ward, Senator
Wilken, Senator Austerman, Senator Green, Co-Chair Kelly
OPPOSED: Co-Chair Donley
ABSENT: Senator Hoffman
The motion PASSED (7-1-1)
SCS CS HB 296 (JUD) was REPORTED from Committee with a previous
zero fiscal note, dated February 28, 2002 from the Department of
Community and Economic Development.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 53(STA)
"An Act establishing the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety
Commission."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, the bill's sponsor, informed the
Committee that this bill would establish a nine-member Alaska
Seismology Safety Commission.
SFC 02 # 92, Side A 06:38 PM
AT EASE 6:38 PM / 6:39 PM
Representative Davies continued that the purpose of the Commission
would be to identify and mitigate earthquake disasters. He noted
that the State has established procedures regarding emergency
responses, but does not have established procedures on how to
prepare for and mitigate disasters before they occur. He stated
that this legislation would address such things as building codes
and land use patterns.
Representative Davies qualified that these plans should be
implemented gradually, but systematically, as not to incur general
public panic. He expressed that while disasters such as earthquakes
have huge impacts; their infrequency tends to make people
complacent. He added that because most earthquakes are minor,
people are "misled" regarding the potential severity. He asserted
that building codes should mandate that buildings be constructed to
withstand severe earthquakes, as 80 percent of the loss of life and
damage resulting from an earthquake occurs within the interior of a
building. He explained that the Commission should be a component of
the Governor's Office rather than within a specific department in
order to provide effective coordination between affected State
agencies.
Representative Davies noted that a $33,000 fiscal note accompanies
this legislation and that the Commission would be required to meet
four times a year. He expressed that Alaska is the only western
state that does not have an established seismic Commission,
although residents of the State "live in earthquake country and we
ought to be prepared."
Co-Chair Kelly asked the function of the State's seismologist.
Representative Davies responded that the State's seismologist has
some authority to address these issues; however, this position does
not have the authority to coordinate procedures between various
departments. He explained that the seismologist could offer
workshops, but is not in a position to coordinate a widespread
effort to address such things as upgrading building codes.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that while it is possible to predict where an
earthquake might occur, it is difficult to predict when one might
occur or its resulting damage. He stated that being prepared for a
disaster would be the prudent course of action, especially since
populated areas of the State could be affected.
Representative Davies asserted that it is important to establish
this Commission in order to gather new research information. He
stated that the Municipality of Anchorage is conducting
"microzonation" research that identifies neighborhoods within the
City that are more prone to earthquake activity, and he continued
that this information should be compiled to determine appropriate
building codes. He contended that when confronted with the
possibility of a large loss of life, the tendency is to "over-
design." He stated that it would be possible to identify differing
building codes for different areas, which would generate sound
fiscal investments. He asserted that "the smarter we can get, the
more efficient we can be in the whole process."
Senator Green asked whether the Commission would concentrate on
municipal areas rather than more remote areas and/or areas where
codes currently exist.
Representative Davies replied that the tendency would be to
concentrate on areas where structures exist.
Senator Green questioned whether the Commission would address
issues on a statewide basis or would concentrate on areas such as
Anchorage and Fairbanks where building codes currently exist. She
mentioned that the Mat-Su area does not have building code
regulations.
Representative Davies clarified that while the City of Fairbanks
has building code regulations, the Fairbanks North Star Borough
does not. He furthered that it is fairly common for lending
institutions to require structures to meet nationally recognized
industry standards before a loan is granted, and he stressed that
these codes should be continually up-dated and appropriate for each
region. He informed the Committee that a recent national coding
entity placed the communities of Fairbanks, Ketchikan and Juneau in
the same category as Anchorage, even thought it is less likely that
those communities would experience earthquakes the magnitude of
those that Anchorage might receive. He stated that if these codings
had been accepted, building costs would have increased in the
affected communities. He exclaimed that Alaska must be proactive
rather than reactive in addressing the earthquake situation.
Senator Austerman asked whether new building codes would affect
existing structures.
Representative Davies replied that the Commission could only issue
recommendations. He noted that requiring existing buildings to meet
new codes would be "extremely expensive;" however, he contended
that were an existing structure to undergo major remodeling then
implementation of the new building codes should be required. He
announced that there is a safety concern regarding many existing
structures, including a high school in the Kodiak school district.
Senator Austerman agreed, but continued to voice the concern about
imposing new codes upon existing structures.
Representative Davies responded that the nine-member Commission
would be comprised of engineers, insurance professionals,
earthquake scientists, and other individuals from appropriate
fields of expertise who would consider the various factors and
manage the process in the most cost effective manner for the State
in those circumstances.
Co-Chair Kelly clarified that the language in the bill specifies
that the Commission could primarily "recommend" and would have no
policing powers.
Senator Green asked how the Commission would coordinate activities
with the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.
Representative Davies reiterated that the State's disaster response
mechanism is very effective and that the Commission would include
the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs in its coordination
efforts. He stated that a good working relationship exists between
the State and federal agencies regarding response efforts, and he
exclaimed that, "Alaskans have a can-do spirit that when something
happens we tend to all pull together." He stressed that Alaska's
response efforts "are in pretty good shape;" however, he stressed
the mitigation efforts are lacking. He expressed that an
appropriate mitigation plan would have a positive impact on
response efforts.
Representative Davies continued that while emergency response
personnel currently undertake mitigation efforts such as
establishing evacuation routes in the event of a tsunami, these
efforts are limited. He reiterated that the most significant
portion of the mitigation effort would be the development of
building code models.
Senator Leman stated that he is impressed with the work conducted
by the Municipality of Anchorage's Geotechnical Advisory
Commission. He asked whether the proposed Commission would function
in a similar fashion but on a statewide basis.
Representative Davies stated that is correct.
Senator Leman asked how the Commission would interact with the
State Emergency Response Commission (SERC).
Representative Davies anticipated SERC would have representation on
the proposed commission; however, he did not anticipate, "there
being much overlap" in the two Commissions' endeavors.
Senator Leman stated that the nine-member Commission appears to be
"light on the technical side of it" and "heavy on bureaucracy."
Representative Davies responded that the intent of limiting the
Commission to nine members was to prevent it from being too large.
He explained that in addition to the designated three public
members, technical expertise would be further available from the
University of Alaska representative who is also currently the State
Seismologist; from the Department of Natural Resources
representative who would probably have expertise in seismic
hazards; and from the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs'
representative who would be qualified in the earthquake response
component. He asserted that the Departments would be able to
provide technical expertise.
Senator Leman asserted that the Governor should appoint qualified
technical experts to serve as Commission members.
Representative Davies agreed.
ROD COMBELLICK, Chief, Engineering Geology Section, Alaska Division
of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Department of Natural
Resources, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks to voice
that the establishment of this Commission "has little to do with
generating State revenues, but would have everything to do with
preserving State resources." He stated that the Commission's
recommendations would strengthen buildings and the State's road
system and result in making the State's "critical buildings safer."
He asserted that these recommendations would save the State
significant money because requiring higher standards of building
construction to reduce earthquake vulnerability would result in
less damage in the event of an actual earthquake. He noted that the
outcome of similar commissions in other states has resulted in
lowering earthquake damage costs. He urged the Committee to support
this bill.
MILT WILTSE, State Geologist and Director, Alaska Division of
Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Department of Natural Resources,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks to attest, after
studying other states' mitigation commissions, that the subject of
earthquake mitigation is complex in that it impacts a wide spectrum
of society including: infrastructure, utilities, local governments,
and access corridors. He stated that it is important to bring a
wide spectrum of representatives together "to mitigate the effects
that a very large-scale earthquake" could produce. He stated that
the Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) has studied
this issue for years and has determined that the establishment of
this sort of Commission would be very beneficial to the State.
GARY CARVER, Geologist, testified via teleconference from Kodiak
that his expertise is in earthquakes and seismic geology. He noted
his long-term involvement in earthquake studies in the State and
spoke of his experience with the California Seismic Commission. He
asserted that the proposed Commission could provide the avenue to
consolidate diverse ideas and opinions and provide a synopsis
addressing how to reduce earthquake hazards. He noted "that Alaska
is the most seismically active State in the Union," and he warned
that the State's most populous areas are located in extremely
hazardous earthquake zones. He stressed that it could be just a
matter of time before a major earthquake might impact the State,
and he avowed that mitigation is the key to offsetting major
damage. He noted that the establishment of the Commission could
relieve the burden placed on small community governments to attempt
to develop and implement local mitigation plans. He asserted that
the passage of this bill would, "in the long run" save Alaskan
lives and tax dollars, as it would cost much less to recover from a
major earthquake were the State prepared. He urged the Committee to
support this bill.
Senator Ward offered a motion to report "the committee substitute
for House Bill 53 State Affairs out of Committee with individual
recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes."
There being no objection, CS HB 53(STA) was REPORTED from Committee
with a previous fiscal note for $33,500 dated April 19, 2002 from
the Office of the Governor.
Senator Leman asked the length of terms for Commission members.
Representative Davies stated that Commission members would be
appointed for three-year terms.
HOUSE BILL NO. 451 am
"An Act relating to municipal bond reimbursement for school
construction; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Jeannette James, the bill's
sponsor, informed the Committee that current State statute mandates
that a five-point maintenance plan accompany school grant
proposals; however he explained, there is no such requirement for
school bond reimbursement proposals. He stated that this bill
corrects that disparity by requiring a five-point maintenance plan
accompany both components.
Senator Austerman asked how school districts currently develop
preventive maintenance plans and whether those plans are working.
Mr. Jeans stated that the Department has "taken an incremental
approach" to the five-step requirement whereby, through the
regulatory process, districts could apply for waivers if they meet
some, but not all five, of the steps. He informed the Committee
that the Department has been allocated an additional position to
monitor schools' implementation of their maintenance plans. He
stated, that during site visits, implementation of the five-point
plan is discussed; however, he noted, no district currently meets
all five of the plan components. He asserted that progress is being
made and that most districts would implement the five-point plan
within a few years.
Senator Austerman asked whether this legislation could assist in
moving districts closer to that goal.
Mr. Jeans asserted "it is a step in the right direction" as this
legislation places the same eligibility requirement that exist for
the grant program as a "qualification for the debt reimbursement
program." He added that this directive only affects municipalities.
Senator Leman communicated that one criticism of the current
preventive maintenance plan is that it gets "bogged down in
details," and that the school districts must spend time dealing
with petty details such as the number of light bulbs required. He
stressed that the intent of the original legislation was to develop
plans to address, for instance, school roof maintenance, but not to
delve into minutia. He stated that he is "hesitant to extend this
interpretation" to other programs.
Mr. Jeans voiced concern that the Department might have presented
overly burdensome regulations to the State Board of Education
regarding the interpretation of the original intent of the
legislation. He further explained that recommendations are reviewed
and submitted to the Board of Education through the bond
reimbursement and grant program process. He stated that the
Department has requested school districts to furnish reports
regarding their preventative maintenance plans at an upcoming
scheduled meeting, and he noted that, at that same meeting, bond
reimbursement representatives would be present to listen to school
district concerns. He anticipated that the State Board of Education
would be presented with revised regulations that would loosen up
some of the requirements.
Senator Leman voiced appreciation for the Department's efforts to
address concerns, and he recommended that changes should occur.
Senator Austerman verified that numerous Legislators have heard
these concerns.
Senator Green asked whether Section 5 of the committee substitute
removes the expiration date for available funds.
Co-Chair Kelly responded that is correct; however, he noted that
the proposed committee substitute was not yet been adopted.
Senator Wilken moved to adopt HB 451, Version 22-LS1524\J as a
working document.
Senator Green objected.
Co-Chair Donley asked what specific changes are included in the
Version "J" committee substitute.
Co-Chair Kelly noted the Version "J" removes the ending date
regarding bond availability.
Co-Chair Donley asked how the removal of this date would impact
school districts.
Mr. Jeans responded that this "would affect the unobligated
balances under Senate Bill 11 to the Fairbanks North Star Borough
School District and the unobligated balances under House Bill 281
for Fairbanks, Sitka and Petersburg" school districts. He continued
that, "there is authorization on the books to issue debt for school
construction" to these communities; however, those school districts
have not, as of yet, submitted projects nor received local voter
approval to issue that debt.
Senator Green asserted that the removal of the ending date would
extend this program and would result in allowing the funding "to
sit there even if it is not being used and no one else has the
opportunity to use that money." She stated that the original
legislation was "date certain."
Senator Green informed the Committee that a new school construction
funding request is pending "for her school district which is
continually in need and is willing to go to bond, and as long as
this money is allowed to sit there and a district not use it, other
districts would never be able to get a bond package put forward."
Co-Chair Donley asked for further information as to how this
situation would prohibit other school districts bond requests from
being furthered.
Senator Green responded that the likelihood of receiving voter
approval of a school bond bill for a facility in "just one
district" is slim. She stressed that statewide support is required
to issue school bonds, and she voiced that allowing money to just
"sit there and wait for a district that is not taking advantage of
them" undermines the ability of other school districts to get
support for their projects.
Co-Chair Kelly ascertained that the funding allocated to the
aforementioned districts is not connected to future school bonding
proposals.
Senator Green countered that they are.
Co-Chair Donley qualified that as long as a large district has
access to available funds, there would be no statewide support for
funding projects in other regions of the State.
Co-Chair Kelly asked for further information about how this
amendment would affect future bonding packages.
Senator Green reiterated that, in order to receive Legislative
support, a bond package must include projects from a variety of
statewide school districts. She exampled that a bond package might
encompass five Municipality of Anchorage school projects, two Mat-
Su Borough school projects in addition to projects from numerous
other communities. She stressed that allowing districts to have
unallocated funds "takes the issue off the table" for other
districts because it undermines statewide support for future school
bond packages.
Co-Chair Kelly insisted that "some Legislators actually support
other districts when they need things."
Senator Green contended that the legislative process involved in a
school bond package requires Statewide interest and support. She
exampled various school district projects included in previous
school bond packages. She stated that the Municipality of Anchorage
usually fully funds their school projects with an expectation that
State funding support would follow, and that the Mat-Su Borough
traditionally supports "70/30 bonding proposals."
Co-Chair Kelly commented that the Municipality of Anchorage
traditionally has supported Statewide school bond packages even
though they usually fund their own school projects.
Senator Green clarified that while the Municipality of Anchorage
does fund its own projects, the City anticipates that State funding
would become available, and she informed the Committee that such
funding did materialize in the majority of these instances.
Senator Green voiced acceptance of a one-year extension for the
expiration date, but stated that she could not support there being
no ending date. She argued that a bond proposal package anticipates
that all the specified monies would be used rather than set aside
indefinitely for a district's project. She argued that the majority
of State funded allocations are time-certain.
Senator Wilken stated that money is not actually set aside for some
districts, but rather that the authorization to expend monies is
granted.
Senator Green concurred.
Senator Wilken voiced that school districts should not be "rushed"
into a project because of a specified timeline. He stated that the
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District has projects "in the
cue waiting to be voted upon, knowing that this authorization is in
place." He stated that he does not take issue with the open-ended
dates.
Co-Chair Kelly furthered the position that the un-spent monies
allocated to some school districts has no "connection to other
projects in the State."
Co-Chair Donley confirmed Senator Green's understanding that the
most recent Municipality of Anchorage school bond projects were
approved by the city's voters with the expectation that the city
would receive State bonding reimbursement.
Co-Chair Donley additionally supported Senator Green's position
that school districts "that have money available to them at any
given time," might not necessarily provide the necessary consensus
to support other school bond packages. He voiced support for a
designated time-certain approach to the funding, and suggested that
a one-year extension would be acceptable.
Co-Chair Kelly concurred that a one-year extension would not be a
problem as, he noted that the Fairbanks North Star School District
would be voting on their school projects within that timeframe.
However, he asserted, the ending date should not be an issue, and
he questioned whether the need for an ending date is based "upon
the internal politics of getting a bond package passed" or other
reasons that are unclear.
Senator Green asked whether a five-year sunset date is designated
in State statute for most State programs, and she asked, were this
the case, whether a project that extends beyond that time would
require re-authorization. She asked why this authorizing and
obligating of State funds should be treated differently than
established procedures.
Senator Wilken suggested that one difference is that the voters of
the Fairbanks North Star Borough must approve 100 percent Borough
funding for school projects that would subsequently be reimbursed
by the State. He continued that the local voter authorization of a
school bonding project provides "the filter" that it is "okay to
spend the money" whether it is spent in two years or six years. He
avowed that the State should only be concerned with the fact that
local voters have agreed that the money should be spent in their
community to provide better schools and education programs.
Co-Chair Donley attested that the five-year sunset is to necessary
to control the timeframe in which the State would be obligated to
pay for the debt service. He stated that if the timeframe were
unlimited, a local community might undertake a project at a time
when the State could not afford the reimbursement. He stressed that
specified sunset dates place reasonable timeframes on a community
regarding the State's debt service obligations.
Senator Wilken countered that, as the end of the five-year
timeframe approaches, the State's obligations increase as
communities rush to get their projects underway; whereas were there
no specified ending dates, the State's obligations would level out
over time.
Co-Chair Donley contended that the Legislature "could not predict
the State's fiscal situation in an unlimited future amount of
years." He stressed that the five-year time limits were established
in order to define the State's obligations rather than having other
entities control the financial situation.
Senator Leman asked the amount of the unused authorized funds in
question.
Mr. Jeans stated that approximately $42 million is authorized for
the Fairbanks School District and that approximately $300,000 is
authorized each for Sitka and Petersburg.
Senator Leman commented that a sunset date does not seem
unreasonable. He voiced support for allowing a timeframe that would
permit the Fairbanks North Star School District to adequately
address it projects.
SFC 02 # 92, Side B 07:26 PM
Senator Leman asked whether the Fairbanks North Star Borough school
projects could be implemented within a two-year timeframe.
Senator Wilken and Co-Chair Kelly concurred that this would be a
manageable timeframe.
AT EASE 7:27 PM / 7:36 PM
Senator Wilken moved to withdraw the motion to adopt committee
substitute, Version "J."
There being no objection, the motion to adopt committee substitute,
Version "J," was WITHDRAWN.
Co-Chair Kelly ordered the bill HELD in Committee pending further
discussion with the bill's sponsor.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Pete Kelly adjourned the meeting at 07:38 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|