04/01/2008 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB285 | |
| HB266 | |
| HB403 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 403 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2008
3:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 285(FIN)
"An Act relating to the power and duties of the Department of
Education and Early Development for improving instructional
practices in school districts; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 258(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 266
"An Act relating to the approval and administration of child
care services by the Department of Administration primarily for
the benefit of state officers and employees; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 403
"An Act appropriating $100,000,000 to the Alaska achievers'
scholarship fund; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 403 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 28(FIN)
"An Act relating to limitations on mandatory overtime for
registered nurses and licensed practical nurses in health care
facilities; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 285
SHORT TITLE: STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL DISTRICT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS
02/19/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (S) SED, FIN
02/27/08 (S) SED AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/08 (S) Heard & Held
02/27/08 (S) MINUTE(SED)
02/29/08 (S) SED AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/29/08 (S) Moved CSSB 285(SED) Out of Committee
02/29/08 (S) MINUTE(SED)
02/29/08 (S) SED RPT CS 1DP 2NR 1AM SAME TITLE
02/29/08 (S) DP: STEVENS
02/29/08 (S) NR: DAVIS, OLSON
02/29/08 (S) AM: HUGGINS
03/01/08 (S) SED AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/01/08 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/10/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/10/08 (S) Heard & Held
03/10/08 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/15/08 (H) HES AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/15/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/19/08 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/19/08 (S) Moved CSSB 285(FIN) Out of Committee
03/19/08 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/19/08 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 3NR 1AM SAME TITLE
03/19/08 (S) LETTER OF INTENT WITH FIN REPORT
03/19/08 (S) DP: ELTON, THOMAS
03/19/08 (S) NR: STEDMAN, HOFFMAN, OLSON
03/19/08 (S) AM: DYSON
03/24/08 (S) FIN LETTER OF INTENT AMENDED
03/24/08 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/24/08 (S) VERSION: CSSB 285(FIN)
03/25/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/08 (H) HES, FIN
03/27/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/27/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/08 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/01/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 266
SHORT TITLE: STATE EMPLOYEE DEPENDENTS CHILD CARE CTRS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KERTTULA
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) STA, HES, FIN
03/18/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/18/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/20/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/20/08 (H) Moved CSHB 266(STA) Out of Committee
03/20/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/25/08 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 6DP 1NR
03/25/08 (H) DP: DOLL, LYNN, ROSES, JOHANSEN,
JOHNSON, GRUENBERG
03/25/08 (H) NR: COGHILL
04/01/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 403
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: SCHOLARSHIP FUND
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GUTTENBERG
02/19/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (H) HES, FIN
03/13/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/13/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/25/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/25/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/25/08 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/01/08 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM LAMKIN, Staff
to Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the House committee substitute
(HCS) for CSSB 285(FIN) on behalf of Senator Gary Stevens,
sponsor.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed support for the proposed
amendments to CSSB 285(FIN).
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 266.
LIA CARPENETI, Staff
to Representative Beth Kerttula
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions regarding HB 266 on
behalf of Representative Kerttula, sponsor.
NIKKI MORRIS, Childcare Referral Counselor & Publications
Specialist
Association For The Education Of Young Children - Southeast
Alaska (AEYC-SE Alaska)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided statewide vacancy and capacity
statistics for private child care services.
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer
Division of General Services
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 266.
CHRISTIAN GOU-LEONHARDT, Staff
to Representative David Guttenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 403 on behalf of
Representative Guttenberg, sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:05:31 PM.
Representatives Wilson, Keller, Seaton, and Gardner were present
at the call to order. Representatives Fairclough, Cissna, and
Roses arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 285 - STATE INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL DISTRICT
3:06:30 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 285(FIN), "An Act relating to the power
and duties of the Department of Education and Early Development
for improving instructional practices in school districts; and
providing for an effective date."
3:07:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH moved to adopt the proposed House
committee substitute (HCS) for SB 285, Version 25-LS1522\O,
Mischel, 4/1/08, as the work draft. There being no objection,
Version O was before the committee.
3:08:20 PM
TIM LAMKIN, Staff to Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, reviewed the changes incorporated into Version O.
On page 3, line 12, the phrase, "based on low student
performance," was added to provide a clear and bright line as to
when the Department of Education and Early Development shall
begin the process of stepping into the district. On page 3,
line 13, the words, "as necessary," were struck because they
were deemed unnecessary. On page 3, line 14, the words, "as
described in AS 14.07.030(14) or (15);" were added at the
request of the department. He said this clarifies that this
intervention is only the state's accountability system
intervention and is unrelated to No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
On page 5, line 21, the phrase, "material, and student
management tools" was added. However, he pointed out, the
drafter omitted the word "learning", as the sponsor had intended
the added phrase to read, "material, and student learning
management tools". He requested that the committee consider a
conceptual amendment to add the word "learning".
CHAIR WILSON pointed out an additional change that was made on
page 3 [line 28] where the word "redirecting" was substituted
for the word "withhold".
MR. LAMKIN confirmed that this substitution fixed a technical
error identified by the prior committee.
3:11:38 PM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), stated that
the [EED] supports the amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he believes the concerns he had
expressed last time were addressed by the desk audit regulations
that were just passed by the school board. The regulations
referenced how notice for intervention would be given, provided
an end date to the intervention - the same as the bill does -
and delineated the process that would occur. He asked whether
Mr. Jeans is comfortable that these regulations satisfy the
committee's concerns.
MR. JEANS responded the regulations do not include the end date
that is included in statute; it is in the bill itself. He said
[EED] asked for and received latitude from the state board to
make any necessary conforming amendments to the regulations
based on the final passage of SB 285. Some adjustments will
probably be needed and [EED] will do that once session is over,
he advised.
3:13:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES reviewed the concerns he had expressed at
the last meeting. One concern was in regard to the petitioning
by the districts as to when they would continue or discontinue
the department intervention. He said Version O satisfies his
concern about giving adequate notice to the districts that an
intervention is going to be done. The other concern he had had
was with targeting a district, or three schools out of twelve,
or six schools out of twelve, and going in with an intervention
that required all schools to participate. He said it appears to
him that, under Version O, the audits are very specific and
would go to a school and not a district. He inquired whether
Mr. Jeans is comfortable the committee has addressed that
adequately.
MR. JEANS replied the statutory language before the committee
does refer to school or district, but the intent of this is to
do school-level intervention before having to get to district-
level intervention under adequate yearly progress (AYP). Under
NCLB, the department is required to intervene when districts
fail AYP for multiple years. Judge Gleason's issue was that
that is too long for the state to sit back. The state needs to
be looking at individual schools and helping those schools
improve earlier. [The department] has the data to do that and
it just so happens to be the same data that [the department] is
collecting under NCLB.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES related his understanding that it is EED's
intent to do interventions on a school-by-school basis and not a
districtwide basis. The districtwide basis comes into play when
there are requirements and mandates under NCLB.
MR. JEANS stated he agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that [Version O] references AS 14.17
regarding the redirection of funds. He said his understanding
is that the redirection of funds would occur from the [federal]
Title I funds and, in particular, it would be that same 20
percent offset that is required under NCLB - when a school is
non-compliant the requirement is that 20 percent be set aside
for remediation. Is it the intent of the department that that
is where the redirected funds would come from, he asked.
MR. JEANS answered the [federal] Title I funds currently apply
to the NCLB interventions where the department is requiring
districts to hire a district coach and utilize their school
improvement grants. The school improvement grants are in
addition to the regular Title I funds. So, under NCLB,
districts are receiving additional support for school
interventions, and to have the department direct those funds
absolutely seems appropriate, he said. The department's concern
in this particular statute was whether those district coaches or
school coaches would be a school district employee or a
department employee. There is approximately $220,000 in the
department's fiscal note under contractual expenses, he
explained, and it is the department's intent to use that money
to hire the school coaches or district coaches where they are
required. If additional funding is required, the department
will come back and ask for a supplemental, but if the
legislature does not give that request, this would allow the
department to utilize some foundation funds to hire those
contract employees.
3:17:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES offered his understanding it would be the
department's intent to take some of the foundation funds if the
20 percent of Title I funds had not yet been impacted under
NCLB or if there were additional grants given through NCLB for
implementation of remediation programs. The department's intent
would be to only take the Title I funds if it did not have the
money or the foundation grants.
MR. JEANS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said as long as that intent is clearly in
the record he has no problem supporting the language of this
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER characterized SB 285 as a good bill, and
stated his support, particularly given that it is tied directly
to the proficiency of the student.
3:19:01 PM
MR. JEANS, in response to Representative Seaton, confirmed that
the department supports adding the word "learning" on page 5,
line 21, between the words "student" and "management".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 5, line 21, following "and student";
Insert "learning"
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to whether EED has
received some "push back" from the school districts when the
department has tried to intervene.
MR. JEANS said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH declared her support for the bill
because it clarifies the roles and the reach that EED has in
making sure students achieve the educational goals that have
been set. She asked Mr. Jeans whether he believes, as she does,
that the state has always had that authority to intervene in
school districts.
MR. JEANS concurred that the bill does clarify those issues, and
that the department believes it has that authority, and relayed
that the department's attorneys would argue that such is the
case.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she would be voting to move
Version O out of committee in order to show her support for EED
and its authority to make sure Alaskans receive the quality
education they are entitled to through the Alaska State
Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that the intent is for the
department to continue updating the legislature through its
annual report as to what interventions have taken place and what
the status of those schools is. This will ensure that the
legislature is coordinated with the department in terms of the
legislature's responsibility.
MR. LAMKIN drew attention to page 4, lines 30-31. He suggested
that the words "as necessary" be deleted in order to conform to
the words being struck from page 3, line 13.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, as follows:
Page 4, lines 30-31,
Delete "as necessary"
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the fiscal note is still
current given the changes that have been made to the bill.
MR. LAMKIN responded yes.
3:24:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report the proposed HCS for SB
285, Version 25-LS1522\O, Mischel, 4/1/08, as amended, out of
committee with the attached letter of intent, individual
recommendations, and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, HCS CSSB 285(HES) was reported from the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
HB 266 - STATE EMPLOYEE DEPENDENTS CHILD CARE CTRS
3:24:58 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 266, "An Act relating to the approval and
administration of child care services by the Department of
Administration primarily for the benefit of state officers and
employees; and providing for an effective date." [CSHB 266(STA)
was before the committee.]
3:25:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
testified that trying to alleviate the "great crush" on Alaska's
childcare needs is at the heart of HB 266; it would ease that
tremendous need by allowing state departments, in consultation
with the Department of Administration (DOA), to locate a
childcare center in a department's building or, if there is no
space in the building, to enter into a childcare consortium. A
department could choose whether to get paid for the childcare.
Half of the states in the U.S. have on-site childcare for state
employees, she reported. The emphasis in HB 266 is for state
employees, but other people can be allowed to participate when
space is available.
3:27:07 PM
LIA CARPENETI, Staff to Representative Beth Kerttula, Alaska
State Legislature, sponsor, added that 45 percent of Alaskan
families with young children said they found it difficult to
find childcare and 36 percent of Alaskan families with young
children said someone in their family could not work or had to
restrict his/her work hours due to the cost, quality, or
availability of childcare.
3:28:25 PM
NIKKI MORRIS, Childcare Referral Counselor & Publications
Specialist, Association For The Education Of Young Children -
Southeast Alaska (AEYC-SE Alaska), provided the committee with a
list of parents willing to be contacted to talk about their
situation. She said AEYC-SE Alaska is the local childcare
resource and referral agency in Southeast Alaska. She relayed
that across Alaska there is a 2-3 percent vacancy rate at any
time for infant care - children under 30 months of age - in part
because childcare licensing regulations allow providers a much
smaller number of children under that age. From 30 months to 5
years and into school age, the vacancy rate fluctuates
throughout the year, but the average is 9-30 percent. Ms.
Morris said she knows from talking with parents every day that
they are generally very hard pressed to find a situation that
will work for them, especially if their child is younger.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether statistics are available
for state employees who do not have access to or who cannot
afford childcare, as opposed to statistics from across the state
in general.
MS. MORRIS said not at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked why there is a shortage in childcare
providers.
MS. MORRIS replied that one reason is that there is a limited
number of spaces for the age group under 30 months. In Juneau
the birth rate is about 40 births per month, but a 2-3 percent
vacancy rate means only two to six [childcare] spots are
available per month. Another reason is financial - childcare is
a difficult business. Regardless of the setting, the hours are
long, very few programs can afford health insurance, and there
is an education requirement for providers. For every year in
childcare, providers must receive 15 hours of training.
Additionally, the assistance rate for childcare has not been
raised since 2001. Thus, families are struggling to pay for
childcare, and may not be able to afford it even if an opening
becomes available. Also, a provider may not be able to provide
childcare at a rate a family can afford.
3:32:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired whether the unavailability of
childcare is detrimental to people working for the state.
MS. MORRIS answered yes. For example, one mother she talked to
could only work about 10-15 hours a week and still might have to
quit her job. The couple was paying $1200 a month for a nanny
because infant care was non-existent at the time.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether providing a state-supported
childcare center, which would likely pay higher wages, would
result in taking an already limited number of qualified people
away from private childcare centers, thus resulting in even
fewer childcare slots being available in the community.
MS. MORRIS posited that it wouldn't because the higher pay would
attract more qualified people.
CHAIR WILSON surmised that the profitability would be better in
a childcare center where the numbers are larger than in a home
setting.
MS. MORRIS replied that that might be the case.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that the allowable number of
children a provider can supervise would hold true regardless of
the setting. How would the economics per provider change in a
center setting, he inquired.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA answered that the problem is a lack of
space, not a lack of providers, and is one reason why other
states have gone to allowing centers in their state office
buildings. People would have to go to a lot of work to open
centers in state buildings, but if there was space and they
worked with the DOA it could be done, she opined, and offered to
get further information to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON restated his concern about the state
taking providers from the private sector.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA responded that the intent is to provide
state employees with their own childcare space and thereby
alleviate the shortage of childcare space for others in the
community.
3:39:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked how childcare subsidies get paid and
whether they can be subsidized by the parent.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she has not focused specifically on
the issue of subsidies because the bill doesn't.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said his daughter is a childcare provider
in Colorado, and when his daughter looked at leasing space in
Colorado, it was cost prohibitive because the number of children
that she could take in, with herself and one employee, was too
small to be able to make any profit after paying the lease,
utilities, and insurance. He noted that the finance
subcommittee on which he serves just authorized a rate increase
for the state's childcare subsidy. Depending on income, the
subsidy can now go up to $70 a day.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked what drives the pricing and what
prevents the provider from raising the price.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES surmised that such is controlled by supply
and demand.
3:43:12 PM
CHAIR WILSON told the committee about a childcare provider in
her area who is unable to raise her prices because the parents
cannot afford more. Chair Wilson further related that this
childcare provider has helped her employees go to school, but
then these employees would like to have an increased paycheck
after completing the schooling. This provider looked at moving
her childcare from her home to a large center, but it was
unaffordable and the provider would have had to work for
nothing. The economics are a dilemma and the state's rules and
regulations are stiff, said Chair Wilson. Additionally, it is
different in every town. The childcare subsidy to the provider
is based on the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)
formula for each community. Right now, an effort is being put
into changing the regulations to create a tiered system which
will be helpful, particularly to the parents. For instance, a
"four star" provider has more training and child development
education and is more skilled at working with children and
helping them develop.
3:46:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH cited paragraph two in the fiscal note
which states: "Many of the facts needed to determine program
costs are unknown, such as numbers of children to be served,
amounts of facility space necessary, location, staffing levels,
and the magnitude of employee contributions that would offset
program costs." She said she is unhappy with the fiscal note
because a determination cannot be made as to whether the state
can afford to offer an additional subsidy. She asked what the
current subsidy is for state employees.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed that it is not a great fiscal
note. However, she said, there was discussion in the prior
committee that none of "this" will be allowed unless there is a
needs assessment and unless the departments work hand in hand
with the DOA. It would then be up to the DOA whether to approve
it, and if it is cost prohibitive, the department is not going
to allow it. She said she felt there could have been much more
work done in developing the fiscal note in terms of looking for
information from around the state. This bill would allow state
employees who cannot find childcare to go to their department to
see about a space. She said she did not think it will be cost
prohibitive but that instead there will be better communication
between employees who have the need and department heads.
Representative Kerttula said she did not know the current
subsidy for childcare, but she would get that information for
the committee.
3:49:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked Representative Kerttula to
address the issue of subsidized childcare in a state facility
for legislative session workers and the possibility that that
could put other childcare providers in the community out of
business.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she is of the belief that the need
is so great that this would not be the case and is certainly not
her intent. The bill was specifically changed to not allow
state employees to do the childcare; it would be completely
private enterprise taking this over, she advised. If a private
provider does not want to be involved, that provider will not
come forward.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked where the $70 per child subsidy
mentioned by Representative Roses is coming from.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA responded that that is the childcare
assistance for those with low income, and that she will get that
information to Representative Fairclough.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES added that that is through Medicare and
Medicaid, and was adjusted this year by about 6 percent in the
finance subcommittee. He said it is up to $70 after all the
area cost-differentials have been applied, and is the highest
someone will get.
3:52:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired whether this means that under
the Medicare system, the state is reimbursing 50 percent of the
cost, or whether all of it is coming from the federal
government.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES replied that it is matching funds.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH surmised, then, that there is a cost
to the state associated with that subsidy.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said it is for everyone of low income,
not just state employees.
CHAIR WILSON said she envisions that what the bill is proposing
would be used by a department that is having difficulty
retaining employees and that has a space available; that
department could provide the space free to a private childcare
provider and it would be a benefit for the state employee to
have childcare on the spot, and it would not cost the state much
money. Each department could figure out how to best enter into
such an arrangement.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA added that she thinks the DOA would
figure out what the cost to the state would be and would find
providers who could reimburse the state. She relayed that she
has heard of so many people having to leave jobs, or not take
jobs, or not be able to work because of the childcare situation,
and this bill is one step towards addressing the needs of state
employees.
CHAIR WILSON asked whether HB 266 would apply to the legislature
as well.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA answered yes, the legislature would be
allowed to do childcare as well, and offered her belief that all
members of Legislative Council have supported this.
3:55:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER requested clarification regarding whether
HB 266 would apply to others besides state employees.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA responded that under HB 266, childcare
for state employees would be the primary emphasis, but childcare
for other people could be available if a particular space is
large enough. She relayed that every childcare provider she has
talked to feels that if state employees had other sources of
childcare, then the pressure on the rest of the community would
be alleviated.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired how a determination would be made
regarding which parents [in the community] could make use of the
state facility.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied there are currently working
models in Juneau and she has been assured by Joy Lyon of AEYC-SE
Alaska that it would not be difficult to follow those kinds of
models, though it would be something each department would have
to work out with the provider based on its own employees' needs,
and would be market driven as well.
MS. MORRIS added that she spoke with the director of the Gold
Creek facility and was told that that facility has a 50 percent
preference for federal employees and then it is made available
to others on a first-come-first-served basis.
3:57:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA observed that under HB 266 the DOA has
flexibility, and that the provision on page 2 [lines 3-6]
requires the department to first determine whether it would be
competing with current private childcare services in the area.
She said she therefore thinks it is a good idea to have
something like this in place and she supports the bill.
CHAIR WILSON noted that any department deciding to spend money
on a childcare facility would have to come to the legislature
and request an appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted, however, that the language on page
1, line 8, says in part: "the Department of Administration shall
approve". He questioned, therefore, whether the word "shall"
should be changed to "may".
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that the DOA has a duty to
conduct a review and do a needs assessment. She said she
therefore thinks the word "shall" is necessary because the other
departments will have determined whether to allow childcare
services. In terms of the review and approval, the DOA is going
to approve the service if it is satisfactory. Approval is not
mandatory, but employees can work with their departments to
first see if there is space available. Then that department
would work with the DOA. She said she imagines that the DOA
would not approve a childcare center if the needs assessment
doesn't illustrate a need. She suggested that the language [on
page 1, line 11] could be changed to say, "review and may
approve requests", since that is certainly the intent.
4:03:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that language on page 2, lines 25-
28, says: "The cost of child care services provided under AS
39.90.200 - 39.90.290 shall be offset by fees charged to the
state officers and employees or other parents who use the child
care services. The department may provide for a sliding fee
schedule, with fees charged on the basis of household income."
He surmised that the department could fully offset the fees if
it did not want to come before the legislature for funding.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA argued that the legislature reviews a
department's budget regardless of whether things are paid for or
not, and thus the legislature would have oversight.
Furthermore, a department may want to have everything offset or
it may want to institute a sliding fee schedule. The desire is
to give discretion to the departments to be able to work this
out with the DOA.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired whether there has been an attempt
to work this out in salary negotiations as a benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied she does not believe so, though
a union representative provided testimony in the last committee.
4:05:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that HB 266 has more state
involvement than she had anticipated, as she had originally
thought the bill was only going to allow departments to make
space available for a childcare center to be run. She cited Ms.
Morris's testimony that the problem is a lack of places for
childcare facilities rather than a lack of providers. She
suggested it may be effective to just rent state space to a
private childcare business and have no other state involvement
other than ensuring that the facility is safe.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA answered that that is what this bill is
attempting to allow. The department would set aside the space
and then work with the DOA, but after that it is pretty much
turned over to the private provider. The bill makes clear that
the provider can charge a sliding scale and it makes clear that
the department may ask to have the building fees offset, or the
department may choose not to.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised that parents would pay their
childcare bill with whatever subsidy they currently get, and
there would be little cost to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA conceded that the fiscal note has not
proved helpful, and noted that the person who prepared the
fiscal note, Mr. Jones, is in the audience.
4:09:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that if a childcare service was
operated in the way that's intended, there would be no cost to
the state for staffing or employee contributions. Also, the
number of children to be served would be irrelevant other than
with regard to how many children can legally be in the space.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES pointed out there could potentially be a
cost because, as indicated on page 2 [lines 21-22] the childcare
program could be located in a state-owned building or in a
privately-owned building leased by the state. Therefore, there
would be cost to the state if the facility is leased, and the
anticipation would be that part of the sliding scale would be to
offset that cost.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed. She said she thinks that is why
the fiscal note is indeterminate, though she has not talked with
Mr. Jones about that point.
4:10:49 PM
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer, Division of General
Services, Department of Administration (DOA), stated that he
prepared the fiscal note, and that the DOA does not support
HB 266 because it does not believe that providing childcare is
an appropriate function of state government.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Mr. Jones whether he thinks it is
appropriate for the state to rent excess space to a childcare
center or any other kind of business, like a coffee shop, that
might be of benefit to state employees.
MR. JONES acknowledged that such is currently done in some state
facilities. For example, there is a credit union in a Juneau
facility and a coffee shop in an Anchorage facility.
4:12:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that the fiscal note needs to
reflect what is in the bill regardless of whether the DOA
supports it, and that the bill provides that the state utilize
space in an existing building on an availability basis. What
cost would there be to just use space, she inquired.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that there are costs with risk
management and overall insurance costs, so there might be costs
to the state for renting space. She pointed out that a
provision to have state employees do childcare work has been
stripped from CSHB 266(STA), so now the bill just provides for
making use of space or entering into a consortium. She asked
Mr. Jones if that made any difference in the analysis.
MR. JONES said that when he generated the fiscal note
[specifically for CSHB 266(STA)], his understanding was that
there would be other work involved aside from simply providing
space. He offered to get a number for the state's space
averages. The department would have to contract out for experts
to do needs assessments because it does not have staff who are
expert in this field, he advised, and he is unsure of what other
types of work would be involved. There would have to be a lot
of analysis and qualification of providers. He pointed out that
when the state procures leased space for state offices, one of
the specific goals is to not have any vacancy because that is a
waste of state funds. Thus, the current inventory of unused
space is very low and is temporary.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that the paying tenant could
be a licensed childcare center.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that language on page 2 [lines 17-
19] says in part, "In addition, centers may be located in
privately owned buildings conveniently located to the place of
employment". He asked if the intention is that the state would
lease an additional building and make it available free of
charge to a childcare provider.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the intent is that in those areas
where there was absolutely no state office space, a consortium
could be entered into with other state entities or a
municipality, and the childcare provider could be required to
pay for that space. A municipality or a school might have
space, for example. The state is leasing for other uses and
purposes, so why not allow it to do so for childcare when it is
cost effective and will not hurt competition.
4:18:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that the intent is that if space
is not available, an agency could propose to the DOA that it
would like to lease another building, or space in another
building, and that it may or may not lease jointly with someone
else. That space would then be sublet to a childcare provider.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA responded that that is where the
childcare provider may or may not be required to pay it all back
- that would be up to the state agencies and the DOA.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that if a space existed in the
community and the provider could afford it, the provider would
be leasing that space and the state would not be involved at
all.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that the bill allows departments
the flexibility to work with its employees and childcare
providers. The state might choose to give the provider a break,
or it may not if it is cost prohibitive. If a department finds
it is losing employees due to childcare pressures, the
department may decide to work that out with the employees, and
that is what the bill is really structured to do. She relayed
that she would get language to the committee that clears up any
question about departmental authorities.
CHAIR WILSON noted that the state may want to look into whether
it is more cost effective to give employees raises or to provide
childcare. She said she is not advocating that the state
provide the childcare, but she is advocating that when there is
space, the state could use that to allow someone to provide the
childcare.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA reiterated that the bill originally said
that a state employee could provide the childcare if there was
no private provider available. However, she added, she became
convinced in the last committee that a private provider would do
it if the space issue could be worked out. She said she would
talk further with the DOA and individuals to clarify some of the
language.
4:22:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted that for legislators, it is hard to
find a place to stay in Juneau, let alone places for members'
employees to stay, let alone for them to arrange for childcare.
She said she thinks it is a state responsibility to work with
its employees to make sure they can continue to work so as to
avoid constantly having to hire and train new employees or deal
with employees not being at work because they could not find
childcare. While the DOA may not support HB 266, it's the
legislature sets policy, she opined, and this bill offers an
option to the department that it may not have thought of before
but needs to think about. If the bill passes and a department
does not want to arrange for childcare, it won't, but it gives a
state agency the ability to come up with its own solution
quickly.
CHAIR WILSON pointed out that legislators have requested
childcare service for themselves, as well. Legislative Council
has talked about this quite a bit because of these requests, she
relayed, and the people that came to Legislative Council with
the request said they would be glad to pay for the service if
they could just find a place for their children.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH voiced her concern about competition
with the private sector through the subsidization of one
business and not another. If it is not exclusive to state
employees, it could create a disparity. She relayed that she,
herself, was a stay-at-home mother who did childcare for a
neighbor so she could stay at home with her own children. She
noted that if the state does not have excess space, then going
out to lease that space has a real cost.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA assured the committee that there is no
intention to create competition. She said she would take the
committee's comments into consideration and come back with an
improved product.
[CSHB 266(STA) was held over.]
HB 403 - APPROP: SCHOLARSHIP FUND
4:28:23 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 403, "An Act appropriating $100,000,000 to the
Alaska achievers' scholarship fund; and providing for an
effective date."
4:28:45 PM
CHRISTIAN GOU-LEONHARDT, Staff to Representative David
Guttenberg, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that HB
403 is the funding mechanism for legislation the committee has
already passed out.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 403 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected. He said he will recommend do
not pass because, in his perspective, providing a needs-based
program instead of a merit-based program is not a wise use of
educational funding. It will create an entitlement situation,
he predicted, and suggested that other criteria be considered
for awarding these scholarships.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER then withdrew his objection.
CHAIR WILSON, after ascertaining that there were no further
objections, announced that HB 403 was reported from the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|