Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
05/01/2025 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB186 | |
| Overview: Metropolitan Planning Organization Boundary Process and Considerations | |
| Overview: Testimony by Fast Planning Policy Board Members | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 186-APPRENTICE LABOR IN PUBLIC PROJECTS
1:04:29 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An Act relating to the use of
apprentice labor in public construction projects; and relating
to a report on the use of apprentice labor in public
construction projects."
1:05:12 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK, as prime sponsor, recapped HB 186. She
reminded the committee that the proposed legislation is twofold.
In reference to the operable term "practicable", she said the
proposed legislation would ensure a percentage of labor on
public projects with the cost of $2.5 million, or over, is done
by apprentices. She stated that the other purpose of the
proposed legislation would be data gathering on apprenticeship
utilization.
1:05:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 186,
labeled 34-LS0816\A.1, A. Radford, 4/23/25, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to public construction
contracts;"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 36.05.005 is amended to read:
Sec. 36.05.005. Applicability. This chapter
applies only to a public construction contract that
exceeds $150,000 [$25,000]."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK objected.
1:06:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE spoke to Amendment 1. He began with the
background on the Little Davis Bacon Act (LDBA) in Alaska, which
requires contractors on public construction projects with the
cost of $25,000, or over, to pay prevailing wages. He pointed
out that this threshold had been last updated in 2011; however,
the cost of construction projects has increased "90 to 110
percent." To support local contractors, he expressed the
understanding that other states have raised or eliminated this
threshold. To reflect inflation and account for Alaska's unique
geography, he stated that the proposed amendment would raise the
threshold to $150,000. He argued that a $25,000 threshold would
be unworkable in rural areas off the road system where there is
not a large workforce. He continued that this would also reduce
regulatory burdens on small projects, as LDBA compliance imposes
significant administrative and reporting requirements,
increasing project and engineering costs.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE argued that Amendment 1 would be
supportive of local economies, as a higher threshold would allow
small and rural contractors to bid on public projects. He
remarked that the integrity of LDBA would be maintained, as the
proposed amendment would protect wages for medium- to large-
scale projects, including projects under HB 186. He continued,
stating that the 15 percent use of apprentices would not change,
but the administrative burden on smaller contractors would be
alleviated. He pointed out that these contractors often provide
training to apprentices. He described this as "a pipeline" for
apprentices, stating that the proposed amendment would encourage
this. He summarized that Amendment 1 would reflect economic
realities, promote rural participation, and ensure public
dollars are spent efficiently. He added that raising the LDBA
threshold would modernize the current statute, without
undermining its core purpose. He stated it would also
strengthen HB 186's goal of building a skilled workforce.
1:10:44 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed opposition to Amendment 1, arguing
that it is not relevant to HB 186. She stated that the bill is
about apprenticeship utilization and public projects, but not
about LDBA. She expressed agreement that the threshold should
be raised; however, she maintained that doing this is not within
the scope of the proposed bill. She expressed hesitancy on
adjusting LDBA without more context.
1:12:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that the amendment
belongs in the proposed legislation because apprenticeships are
a function of unions, and this would encourage apprenticeships,
especially in small communities. He explained that contractors
are not in smaller communities because they cannot afford the
threshold; therefore, apprentices cannot build their hours
there. He commented that Legislative Legal Services has advised
the amendment would work with the policies in HB 186.
1:13:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed uncertainty on the proposed
amendment.
1:14:31 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK maintained her objection.
1:14:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tilton, McCabe, and
Moore voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1 to HB 186.
Representatives Stutes, Mina, Eischeid, and Carrick voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
1:15:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 186,
labeled 34-LS0816\A.2, A. Radford, 4/30/25, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "$2,500,000"
Insert "$5,000,000"
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES deferred to Co-Chair Carrick for comments
on the amendment.
1:15:40 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK stated that Amendment 2 would increase the
contract threshold in HB 186 from $2.5 million to $5 million.
She reasoned this would decrease the number of projects that
would need to meet the 15-percent threshold for apprenticeship
labor hours, and in turn, this would lessen the burden on
contractors and the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities. She stated that this change also takes in
consideration the effects of inflation.
1:17:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE argued that Amendment 2 would shrink the
number of projects; therefore, [reducing the need for
apprentices]. He reasoned that "with the demise of Amendment
1," the number of projects would be lessened "on the other end"
as well, and the requirement to use apprentices would be reduced
all together. He expressed frustration because he concurs with
a threshold increase, but he argued that it would need to be
higher. He reiterated that Amendment 2 would reduce the use of
apprentices, and he maintained his objection.
1:17:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES requested clarification that the proposed
bill would not "require" the use of apprentices; moreover,
apprentices would be used only when "practicable".
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed agreement with the statement. She
reminded the committee that data collection on apprenticeship
utilization would also be included. She stated that, per
Amendment 2, the proposed legislation's intent would remain the
same, and the 15 percent apprenticeship usage would be a goal,
not a requirement.
1:19:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that the word
"practicable" is not firmly defined, leaving the "door wide
open" for unions to make the 15 percent apprenticeship usage a
requirement. He suggested that Legislative Legal Services would
agree on this point.
1:20:00 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed support for Amendment 2, as it is a
result of the committee's previous discussion on the proposed
legislation.
1:20:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE maintained his objection.
1:21:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes, Mina,
Eischeid, and Carrick voted in favor of the adoption of
Amendment 2 to HB 186. Representatives Tilton, McCabe, and
Moore voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a
vote of 4-3.
1:21:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report CSHB 186, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the attached
[zero] fiscal note.
1:21:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
1:21:54 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK recognized the concern that the usage of
apprentices could decrease. She argued against the claim that
apprentices are "sitting in lawn chairs" on a regular basis.
She maintained that apprentices of today are the workforce of
the state's future. She noted the loss of federal funding, as
this relates to the loss of apprentices. She continued that the
proposed legislation is a piece of the workforce goal to retain
Alaskans in the state by supplying jobs in the future. She
expressed support for apprentices, suggesting that they are
doing the best work they can.
1:23:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether there were any conversations
concerning LDBA and wages during the research for the proposed
legislation.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK replied that there were no conversations
surrounding HB 186 and LDBA, but she has had these conversations
related to other legislation. She clarified the proposed
legislation is "aspirational," offering a goal for a threshold,
while Amendment 1 would have added a stricter requirement. She
stated that the issues addressed by [Amendment 1] have been
discussed, but not as a part of HB 186.
1:25:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed disagreement, arguing that there
is no current pipeline for apprenticeship programs, and this
leaves only a limited number of apprentices. He expressed the
opinion that an increase in smaller contractors would provide
the needed pipeline for apprentices. He emphasized that
apprenticeship programs need to be improved, and projects in
smaller communities could do this.
1:27:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON expressed appreciation for the attempt to
increase the workforce in Alaska; however, she voiced the
opinion that creating government mandates in the public and
private sectors do not always achieve the sought-after goal.
She concurred with Representative McCabe's comments concerning
moving apprenticeships forward and not burdening smaller
contractors.
1:29:40 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID pointed out that everyone has the same
interest in solving the problem; however, the approach has not
been agreed upon. He observed that the proposed bill would
create a target, not a mandate.
1:30:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes, Mina,
Eischeid, and Carrick voted in favor of the motion to report
CSHB 186, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the attached [zero] fiscal note.
Representatives Tilton, McCabe, and Moore voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 186(TRA) was reported out of the House
Transportation Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 20250212 Cleworth FAST Letter.pdf |
HTRA 5/1/2025 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 20250225 AMATS Letter.pdf |
HTRA 5/1/2025 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 186 Amendment 2.pdf |
HTRA 5/1/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| 20250415 HTRA MPO Boundaries FINAL.pdf |
HTRA 5/1/2025 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 186 Amendment 1.pdf |
HTRA 5/1/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |