Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/06/1996 01:07 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 6, 1996
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivan Ivan, Co-Chair
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Mackie
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 409
"An Act combining parts of the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and parts of the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs by transferring some of their duties to a new Department of
Community and Economic Development; transferring some of the duties
of the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the
Department of Community and Regional Affairs to other existing
agencies; eliminating the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs;
adjusting the membership of certain multi-member bodies to reflect
the transfer of duties among departments and the elimination of
departments; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 330
"An Act relating to the unincorporated community capital project
matching grant program; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 409
SHORT TITLE: DEPT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, Therriault, James, Kohring
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
01/11/96 2409 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/11/96 2409 (H) CRA, FINANCE
01/16/96 2456 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
02/01/96 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/01/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/03/96 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/03/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/06/96 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 330
SHORT TITLE: UNINCORP COMMUNITY CAPITAL PROJ GRANTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
05/03/95 1814 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/03/95 1814 (H) CRA, FINANCE
02/06/96 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
PETE KELLY, Representative
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, answered questions on HB 409.
WILSON L. CONDON, Commissioner
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110400
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0400
Telephone: (907) 465-2300
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position and answered
questions on HB 409.
RICHARD S. CROSS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Education
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2800
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position and answered
questions on HB 409.
KAREN PERDUE, Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position and answered
questions on HB 409.
MYRA OLSEN
Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL CAP)
P.O. Box 74
Egegik, Alaska 99579
Telephone: (907) 233-2424
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 409.
LINDA HARRISON, Family Services Coordinator
Tlingit and Haida Head Start Program; and
Member, Alaska Head Start Association
320 West Willoughby
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1432
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 409.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented department's position and answered
questions on HB 409.
ERNESTINE HANLON
P.O. Box 358
Hoonah, Alaska 99829
Telephone: (907) 945-3624
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 409.
CHESTER MIYASATO
405-B DeGroff
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-1496
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 409.
ANN VELARDI
16140 Old Glenn Highway, Number 1
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: (907) 696-5281
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 409.
DEANNA CAPTAIN
Chairperson, Tanana Chiefs Head Start
Policy Council
P.O. Box 55
Ruby, Alaska 99768
Telephone: (907) 468-4429
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 409.
CARL MOSES, Representative
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4451
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement and answered
questions on HB 330.
WALT WREDE, Manager
Lake and Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 495
King Salmon, Alaska 99613
Telephone: (907) 246-3421
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 330.
DAN SALMON, Administrator
Village of Igiugig
P.O. Box 4008
Igiugig, Alaska 99613
Telephone: (907) 533-3211
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Hb 330.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-9, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR IVAN IVAN called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Ivan, Austerman, Vezey and Kott.
Members absent were Representatives Elton, who joined the meeting
at 1:08 p.m., Mackie and Nicholia. Co-Chair Ivan invited
Representative Carl Moses to join the committee at the table.
HB 409 - DEPT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Number 0075
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted that the committee had received that day, from
the Department of Administration, an analysis on how the department
had calculated moving costs for personnel affected by HB 409. He
informed the committee that testimony would be provided by several
agencies and advocate groups affected by the legislation. He then
invited Representative Kelly to comment on the bill.
Number 0146
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, sponsor of HB 409, spoke briefly, noting
that economic development was important for all of Alaska. He said
HB 409 attempted to merge the functions of economic development,
placing it under one roof for efficiency and to achieve cost
savings. He advised the committee that he was there primarily to
listen.
Number 0206
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted that Jeff Bush, Deputy Commissioner of the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), was
available to answer questions.
Number 0235
WILSON L. CONDON, Commissioner, Department of Revenue ("Revenue"),
urged that neither the Division of Banking, Securities and
Corporations nor the Division of Insurance be moved from DCED to
Revenue. In terms of managing the department, Revenue already had
a full plate. The department's main mission was to raise revenue
efficiently and effectively, he said, as well as to preserve,
protect and enhance, through the Treasury Division, revenue raised.
COMMISSIONER CONDON pointed out that Revenue had responsibility for
numerous independent revenue-related corporations, including the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation, the Municipal Bond Bank Authority and the Alaska
Student Loan Corporation. Revenue's main responsibilities were
revenue-raising and protection. Although the department was
pleased to have its non-revenue divisions, the Child Support
Enforcement Division and the Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
adding more such divisions would compromise its ability to manage
those primary responsibilities.
Number 0364
COMMISSIONER CONDON explained that Revenue had a number of crucial
projects on the front burner, which were being managed from the
commissioner's office. These included continuing the department's
project to revise oil and gas tax regulations, as well as
initiating the revision of corporate income tax regulations.
Commissioner Condon explained the department also needed to focus
more than in previous years on tax policy questions, as they arose,
relating to efforts to close the fiscal gap, both at the state and
national levels.
Number 0443
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON noted Commissioner Condon's objection to
moving the Division of Insurance and the Division of Banking,
Securities and Corporations to the Department of Revenue. He asked
how the commissioner viewed moving the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission, as well as other functions from DCED, to the
department.
Number 0467
COMMISSIONER CONDON replied the same was true for those. However,
the Division of Insurance and the Division of Banking, Securities
and Corporations would more greatly affect Revenue's ability to
manage its core functions.
Number 0545
RICHARD S. CROSS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Education
(DOE), referred to Section 265 of HB 409, which amended the duties
of DOE to include operation of the Head Start program, currently
under the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA). Mr.
Cross praised Head Start, saying when the history of families and
children in the last half of the century was written, one of the
greatest success stories would be the Head Start program and its
positive affect on children and families. Simply, the program
worked. People from all sides of the political spectrum recognized
its effectiveness. It reached children early and involved not only
their families, but all aspects of a child's needs.
MR. CROSS noted that Head Start served 88 Alaska communities. He
commented that some people in Head Start had greater confidence in
the program because it was not located in DOE. He thought the
tension between education and Head Start was healthy. He expressed
that both he and Commissioner Holloway wanted the committee to
realize the vital nature of Head Start. He emphasized that the
program was extremely successful and well-placed in DCRA.
Number 0695
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked Mr. Cross why he thought Head Start
had been proven effective. He suggested that data indicated Head
Start functioned well as day care. However, he could not see the
educational advantage down the street.
Number 0723
MR. CROSS responded that extensive research was available because
of Head Start's long-term existence. Although a report somewhere
might suggest negative aspects, the research, on balance, was
overwhelmingly supportive. Comparative studies of matched groups
of children, including both those in Head Start and those similarly
situated but not in the program, indicated success for Head Start
children both from the educational viewpoint and the viewpoint of
those children as citizens later in life. Overwhelmingly, the
program received high marks. It was generally proven and accepted
to be successful.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wondered why, if it was an education program,
Head Start should not be placed in DOE.
Number 0803
MR. CROSS replied that having every program affecting a child in
the same agency might not be good. He suggested that people
receiving the benefit of Head Start could probably answer that
question best. Mr. Cross noted that public education was a K-12
endeavor. However, Head Start dealt with children's needs earlier
and thus did not belong in DOE. He clarified that Commissioner
Holloway had discussed the issue at length with her staff; no one
in DOE would say Head Start was not vital and important. He
emphasized that Alaska needed to support a strong Head Start
program.
Number 0888
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he appreciated the answer. However, he
did not understand why the state had a pool of educational dollars
being divided into K-12, Head Start, and post-secondary education
funding. If Head Start was primarily an educational program rather
than day care, he wondered if legislators should be making funding
decisions at that micro-level, or whether the money would be better
allocated by the school boards.
Number 0940
MR. CROSS recognized the difficulty of making decisions about where
dollars were spent too far away from the source. He also supported
the concept of communities making more decisions about what
happened locally. However, he believed they were discussing two
different things, local community decisions and agency decisions.
Whether or not a local school board would be the best place to make
decisions about a program such as Head Start was open to question.
Mr. Cross expressed that as it currently existed, Head Start
provided for a tremendous amount of local input and decision-making
in terms of developing the programs in the 88 communities. The
concern here, he said, was whether DOE was the right agency. Given
that Head Start was extremely effective where it was, he could not
say DOE would improve it.
Number 1025
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he understood Mr. Cross to be saying Head
Start was a good fit within DCRA. Yet, as Representative Kelly
looked at what DCRA did, he saw grants for rural development and
legal services, municipal assistance, revenue sharing, power cost
equalization and other programs. He did not see how that was a
better fit for early childhood education than DOE would be. He
expressed the desire to hear a stronger argument explaining exactly
why Head Start did not belong in DOE or why it belonged in DCRA or
somewhere else.
Number 1102
MR. CROSS said he was not the best person to tell Representative
Kelly why Head Start was the right fit in DCRA. His main message,
he said, was that Head Start was vital for Alaska; it was
functioning effectively and serving 88 communities in a high-
quality way.
Number 1146
CO-CHAIR ALAN AUSTERMAN asked if Head Start served a
disproportionate number of rural, rather than urban, Alaskans.
MR. CROSS replied he was not the best person to answer that
question.
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN responded that he would follow up on it.
Number 1175
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted for the record that Representatives Elton and
Nicholia had joined the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA discussed the children's caucus that
she had just attended. Many good things had been said there about
Head Start, including parent involvement and social interactions.
Having children in Head Start, she said, changed their perceptions
about education. Representative Nicholia mentioned that some of
the caucus attendees who would testify later could answer questions
from the committee.
Number 1227
KAREN PERDUE, Commissioner, Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), discussed the proposed transfer of day care
assistance and related programs to DHSS. A large department, DHSS
had $850 million in funds and a full plate of activities to
implement. The commissioner said DHSS looked at four
possibilities, both at the community level and within the
department: 1) cooperation, which was basically staying out of
each other's way; 2) coordination, usually manifested through
memoranda of agreement; 3) collaboration, where parties shared
resources and staff in working on problems together; and 4)
consolidation. She suggested caution in proposing consolidation
rather than collaboration. She felt DHSS was already collaborating
with DCRA on child care programs in the most fundamental way. For
example, the departments had met for more than a year on
implementing welfare reform. In her opinion, day care assistance
was the flip side of welfare reform as it helped families avoid
welfare and assisted families coming off welfare to stay off.
Commissioner Perdue felt it was important to send a message to the
public that they did not need to go through the welfare system to
receive assistance to attend work or training.
Number 1388
COMMISSIONER PERDUE explained that DHSS had worked with DCRA on a
comprehensive strategy addressing working parents, as well as
people moving from welfare to work. Over the next four or five
years, she said, approximately 6,000 families would come off of Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Most of those were
single parents who would need some kind of help with child care
costs, either during training or while working. Collaboration was
important, she said, and the departments were doing so
successfully. They had discussed common forms, sharing staff
functions and other issues; Commissioner Perdue felt those
dialogues would be fruitful. She reiterated that DHSS's plate was
full. She expressed appreciation for the effort to look at
integration and said she believed DHSS was working in that
direction.
Number 1430
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN said while he had heard that DHSS's plate was
full, he had not heard whether the department would accept the day
care program.
COMMISSIONER PERDUE responded that there were reasons to oppose the
transfer at this time. She did not believe the community was
behind the issue. She expressed fondness for the program; she said
she thought it was one of the best investments and that she would
responsibly manage it. However, it was doing fine where it was.
Number 1486
COMMISSIONER PERDUE concluded by discussing the relationship
between Head Start and child care. She explained that Head Start
was a comprehensive program with health, social development and
education components that set it apart from other day care. Under
welfare reform, many Head Start parents would be required to get
jobs or training. However, because most Head Start programs were
not full-day programs, they were difficult for working parents to
use. The state was looking at ways to meet the needs of working
parents receiving Head Start services. That was one good reason,
Commissioner Perdue said, to keep those programs integrated.
Number 1539
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA mentioned that a parent from Fairbanks, who
had testified the previous Saturday, had said she feared child care
would be viewed as a welfare program and that she would prefer that
it be known as an economic tool.
Number 1567
COMMISSIONER PERDUE replied that she had also heard that comment
and had been concerned about it. Welfare did have a stigma to it,
she said. It was true that people on welfare generally wanted to
be off of it. She hoped that as the welfare reform package was put
together, people would not feel compelled to make those statements.
She also hoped they would see welfare as temporary help and realize
they were no different from people receiving child care subsidies.
Commissioner Perdue expressed the desire to dissolve those
divisions in our society.
Number 1610
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted that Commissioner Hensley from DCED was present
and invited him to comment if he wished.
Number 1642
MYRA OLSEN, Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL CAP),
testified that cutting DCRA in two would reduce its effectiveness;
it was working now, she said. She thought the perception was that
urban people felt they no longer needed to take of rural people.
People in rural areas lived under third-world conditions in many
villages, she said, with few economic development opportunities.
She wondered how splitting DCRA and combining it with other
departments could be justified when villages had not yet moved out
of the 19th century. Ms. Olsen noted that rural Alaska had the
highest drop-out and teen pregnancy rates, as well as a deplorable
job situation. She asked if the majority intended to keep them
under the yoke of extreme poverty and not recognize their unmet
needs. Closing the fiscal gap, she said, should not be done on the
backs of the rural people. Head Start was not just education or
day care, but economic development, empowering the parents to
better their lives, including building confidence to break the
cycles of abusive relationships.
Number 1780
LINDA HARRISON, Family Services Coordinator, Tlingit and Haida Head
Start Program, and Member, Alaska Head Start Association, expressed
concern about transferring Head Start to DOE. Head Start's
success, she said, was based on parent involvement. It was not
basically an education program. Head Start was effective under
DCRA because it was a community-based program. After a community
requested the program, Head Start conducted a needs assessment to
determine whether it would meet the needs of the people there.
Head Start worked with all the agencies in a village, including
public health agencies; local doctors and dentists, many of whom
travelled to the rural villages; early childhood programs in the
local schools; and police and fire departments. It also worked
with "transitioning" from the infant learning program, as well as
the Planned Approach to Community Health (PACH) program, alcoholism
support and related programs.
Number 1890
MS. HARRISON reiterated that education was not Head Start's major
and only focus. It was under the right department with DCRA, she
added. She did not want to see DCRA disbanded because she feared
losing an important influence in rural Alaska, as well as losing
the trust of the parents involved. Parents developed their own
plans and goals with Head Start, she added.
Number 1972
MS. HARRISON said it was not a good idea to move day care
assistance to DHSS's Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS).
She emphasized that Head Start was not day care. However, Head
Start was moving towards the potential of working with "wrap-
around" programs to provide day care during the hours Head Start
was not in session. It would not necessarily be Head Start staff
providing the day care, she said, but it would occur at the same
facility.
Number 2008
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Ms. Harrison where she was from.
MS. HARRISON replied she was born and raised in Fairbanks. She
worked in Head Start from 1972 - 1975 with the home-based program,
then went into nursing for ten years. She referred to herself as
a "Head Start success story." She had been working with Head Start
the past seven years.
Number 2033
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked Ms. Harrison to elaborate on parent
involvement in Head Start.
MS. HARRISON explained that Head Start was made up of program
performance standards in four major areas: parent involvement,
education, social services and health. The parent involvement
aspect required that Head Start be a parent-run program. A policy
council composed of parents oversaw the program and developed the
policies and procedures for each local grantee program. Parents
were further involved in numerous aspects including acting as bus
monitors, coming into classrooms, attending parent meetings and
training, doing presentations, helping with community needs
assessments, contacting agencies and volunteering time for agency
programs like WIC and others.
Number 2124
MS. HARRISON discussed the social services component, which
included home visits teaching parenting or other skills, depending
on what the parents wanted to learn; connecting families with
services in the communities such as getting a GED or obtaining
vocational training; or helping parents learn about the job market.
She cited an example of Head Start assisting in Wrangell when the
sawmill closed.
Number 2160
MS. HARRISON referred to the health component of Head Start and
explained the program required all children to have complete
immunizations, tuberculosis tests and physical and dental exams.
Treatment was provided and followed up, with parents being taught
about health and nutrition. Education involved parents; if a
parent was strong in an area, for example, he or she was utilized
in the trainings and meetings. There was more, Ms. Harrison said.
Number 2187
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked where the four components were
developed.
MS. HARRISON responded that Head Start national performance
standards were under federal regulation. There were detailed
specifics for each area. For example, one aspect of education
might be appropriate ambience of a classroom, with children
involved, laughing and talking among themselves or to adults. That
was one aspect of approximately 200 - 300 written performance
standards, Ms. Harrison said, developed in 1965.
Number 2234
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked if those were all national standards.
MS. HARRISON replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said his point was that if Head Start remained
in DCRA or was moved to another department, those standards would
remain the same. The mission of Head Start and everything about it
would remain the same, no matter where it was. It was a grant
function of the state to fund it; it would continue to be funded,
he said, whether it was under DOE or another department.
Number 2249
MS. HARRISON responded that if Head Start moved to DOE, it might
lose significance simply because it was preschool and early
childhood. If cuts were going to be made in education, she foresaw
Head Start being an easier target there.
Number 2295
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked Ms. Harrison if she thought, in an
environment of cutting budgets, that Head Start would somehow be
better protected in DCRA than in DOE.
Number 2300
MS. HARRISON affirmed that was exactly the point. She added that
Head Start was a community-based program. Its focus was not just
education; education was a small part of it.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred back to his original question and
asserted that if Head Start standards were set nationally, its
being a community-based program would not change whether it were in
DCRA or some other department.
Number 2342
MS. HARRISON replied DCRA was Community and Regional Affairs; Head
Start was a community program. It was in an appropriate place.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that although it was a community
program, it was also an education program.
MS. HARRISON pointed out it was also a parent involvement program,
a social service program and a health program, which involved the
whole community.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said that was his original question; all those
things remained no matter where it was.
Number 2337
MS. HARRISON indicated that should be true for that one aspect.
However, she said, there were trust development and other aspects.
She likened a transfer to pulling a child out of his own family and
placing him with another, where he would be a stranger. Things
were going to change, she said emphatically.
Number 2357
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Harrison why things would change
just because it was administered through a different department.
MS. HARRISON responded that different people would administer it.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY questioned who would be different.
MS. HARRISON replied the department and the people heading it.
With change, people would move from one position to another and new
people would be involved. She expressed that she had no idea what
would be involved.
Number 2387
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the only person who would change was the
commissioner. He suggested that Ms. Harrison and others in the
Head Start program probably never dealt with the commissioner
directly.
MS. HARRISON reiterated that with the changes, people would quit or
move. Things would change.
Number 2411
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the committee standard was to make
the agencies prove Head Start should move, or if the bill sponsor
needed to prove it should move. Representative Elton suggested the
committee think about that as the debate continued. He added that
he was not sure it was helpful to ask people to prove it should not
move. He thought it was more helpful to address whether it would
be better for it to move somewhere else.
Number 2433
CO-CHAIR IVAN expressed appreciation for the testimony provided,
which the committee would use as guidance.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA thought there was a misconception in saying
there would be no change when, in fact, changes were being made to
a department. There would definitely be changes when moving a
person from one division to another, she said.
Number 2470
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor, said he spoke on behalf of Commissioner
Cashen.
TAPE 96-9, SIDE B
Number 0008
MR. PERKINS referred to sections of HB 409 that transferred
functions from DCRA to the Department of Labor, particularly the
STEP program, Jobs Partnership Training Act (JTPA) and the
dislocated workers program, as well as the entire Division of
Occupational Licensing. His department's mission, he explained,
was to foster and promote the welfare of Alaska's wage earners;
improve their working conditions; and advance their opportunities
for profitable employment. On the other hand, the mission of DCRA
was to render maximum state assistance to government and community
at regional levels. Mr. Perkins noted that the Department of Labor
was currently working in partnership with DCRA; he said the high
level of cooperation between the two departments allowed them to
successfully and efficiently administer the state training and
employment program, while ensuring the program's integrity.
Number 0059
MR. PERKINS said the Department of Labor felt that in a time of
declining resources, no savings associated with the transfer could
be identified that would justify the required expense of moving the
Division of Occupational Licensing.
Number 0084
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT referred to the four identified areas
proposed for transfer and asked Mr. Perkins if the move of the
Division of Occupational Licensing was the only one opposed by the
Department of Labor.
Number 0094
MR. PERKINS explained that the STEP program was administered in a
partnership between the Department of Labor and DCRA. While DCRA
received money and ran the programs, the Department of Labor
collected and helped distribute the funds. Mr. Perkins suggested
the Department of Administration would have the numbers for that.
He indicated the Department of Labor was perplexed about where the
people would be moved to; they felt the program was already working
fine and they could not identify savings in the long run to justify
the enormity of potential up-front costs. He said they were
anxiously awaiting Representative Kelly's analysis of the savings.
The Department of Labor had been working earnestly with
Representative Kelly to produce the information requested, he
added. However, they were having a hard time thinking where the
savings would be.
Number 0165
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that he did not recall asking the
Department of Labor to produce cost savings. He had asked the
departments that were merging to provide a model, to see what they
thought was their best-case scenario. He said his own office was
also working on that. However, he had not asked other agencies to
produce cost savings; he would leave it to those agencies and the
Administration, he said, to find efficiencies in the out years if
they so chose, if they saw efficiencies that could be reached.
Never was it his expectation that the "catching" agencies would
provide a cost savings analysis. All he had asked for were fiscal
notes on up-front moving costs.
Number 0196
MR. PERKINS responded that those still needed to be reviewed. In
some of their initial ones, he said, they had looked at the moving
costs, but not the associations of data processing resources needed
for the move, remodeling and other costs for which the Department
of Administration would have the figures.
Number 0219
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked why the bill was before the committee
if it was not a cost savings bill.
Number 0229
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that was not the question he was
answering. He said the question Mr. Perkins had posed stemmed from
his thinking that Representative Kelly was asking the Department of
Labor for cost saving efficiencies. The answer to that,
Representative Kelly said, was no, he was not asking the department
for that. He himself, the subcommittees and the Administration
would come up with those. The cost savings, he said, were going to
be achieved in the merger of DCED and DCRA.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA responded that Mr. Perkins had said he
could not see any cost savings in moving this division to another
department.
Number 0259
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated that Mr. Perkins had said there was no
cost savings in the Department of Labor, which Representative Kelly
recognized. Representative Kelly added he was not expecting costs
savings there. He clarified that Mr. Perkins had not been making
a statement overall about the cost saving efforts of HB 409.
Number 0269
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN referred to the discussion by Mr. Perkins of the
Department of Labor and DCRA working together on job training and
the STEP program; he asked whether Mr. Perkins could see an
efficiency if those two programs were moved to the Department of
Labor.
Number 0288
MR. PERKINS replied that it might take time to build those
efficiencies in. Right now, DCRA handled those functions. The
Department of Labor collected funds and distributed them, although
they might help with some programs. Mr. Perkins emphasized the
partnership relationship. He expressed uncertainty about achieving
efficiencies downstream. He reiterated the department's concern
about where to put the people and said there were questions they
had been unable to answer. As Representative Kelly had indicated
he would present his plan within a week or two, the Department of
Labor wanted to see how that might affect them.
Number 0378
ERNESTINE HANLON testified in opposition to HB 409, expressing
concern it would lessen the effectiveness of Head Start if that
program were transferred to DOE, because DOE would reportedly be
looking at cutbacks that would then affect Head Start. She
supported keeping Head Start where it was.
Number 0429
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked, if HB 409 were to become law, creating
a new department, whether Ms. Hanlon would oppose Head Start being
retained in that new department.
MS. HANLON responded that she did not understand the question.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained that HB 409 consolidated two
departments into one and dispersed some activities currently
performed by the departments. He clarified that if DCRA and DCED
were consolidated into one department known as the Department of
Community and Economic Development, keeping Head Start within that
new department rather than transferring it to DOE, he wanted to
know whether Ms. Hanlon would be opposed to that.
Number 0485
MS. HANLON emphasized what she was opposed to was that every time
any changes came about, it was usually the rural people who were
most affected and who lost out the most. They were not the main
focus of any decisions, she said. "As rural people," she said, "we
can't stand to lose anymore. We've lost enough."
Number 0519
CHESTER MIYASATO testified in opposition to HB 409, saying he did
not believe making one large department would be effective for
programs such as Head Start. He discussed the collaboration
project under DCRA, which had funded him for several years to
attend Alaska Head Start Association meetings. He said the paper
chase from a larger department would bog things down. He could not
imagine a larger department operating effectively for something
like Head Start that was already running efficiently and smoothly.
Number 0620
MR. MIYASATO explained his children were involved with Head Start.
He expressed that placing Head Start under DOE would diminish the
quality of the program at some point. Eventually, he said, when
cuts came about, Head Start would be seen as the program from which
to cut first. Mr. Miyasato spoke about Head Start's emphasis on
early childhood and again suggested it would be harmed by being
moved to a larger department.
Number 0684
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY asked if Mr. Miyasato was aware the entire
Head Start budget would be sent to the new department. He added
that the budget would probably receive some cuts, just as
everything else was likely to this year.
MR. MIYASATO replied he was aware of that. He expressed
apprehension about the effectiveness of a larger department.
Number 0733
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded to Mr. Miyasato's suggestion that
Head Start would be the first to be cut under DOE. He explained
that the program had been in his budget subcommittee the previous
year; due to his own efforts, he said, it was not cut at all, while
a lot of other things were. He added that in the majority, there
was an objection to cutting Head Start.
Number 0759
MR. MIYASATO said at the same time, the people who helped Head
Start, such as the collaboration project with DCRA, were essential
to Head Start itself. He envisioned the quality going down if the
department became larger.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY emphasized that HB 409 did not cut Head Start,
nor cut anything.
Number 0807
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA commented that while Representative Kelly
might be the current subcommittee chairman for DCRA, he would not
always be there to protect it. She added that HB 409 had impacts
on future children's lives.
Number 0845
ANN VELARDI distributed Head Start buttons that read "Our
children's hearts are in your hands" to the committee and audience.
A Head Start parent from the Chugiak/Eagle River area, she opposed
HB 409. She voiced concern about transferring Head Start to DOE
because she felt education in Alaska was run on a different
philosophy from Head Start, which worked "from the bottom up,"
coming from community need, with decisions made by parents. In
education, on the other hand, dictates were sent to communities;
parents were not as big a part of that process. Although they
would only be changing the commissioner, eventually, from the top
down, she said, that philosophy would filter down.
Number 0915
MS. VELARDI discussed Head Start components, saying they were not
a blueprint, but guidelines. If twenty different people were
handed the same blueprint, they would build the same house. But if
they were handed guidelines, they would build twenty similar houses
that were not exactly the same. Ms. Velardi's experience with DCRA
had been extremely positive, not just as a Head Start parent but
also as a policy council president and as a member of the Chugiak
Children's Services board of directors, the Alaska Head Start
Association and the Region 10 Head Start Association. What she had
seen with DCRA was that the department did not send dictates down
to the people, but worked with them. She was not sure they would
get that level of commitment from DOE.
Number 0979
MS. VELARDI explained that DOE's program was mandated to
communities, whereas Head Start was optional and originated in the
community itself. Each community, within Head Start guidelines,
was free to work out different options. Head Start helped parents
obtain job skills, increase parenting skills and become advocates
in their communities. Ms. Velardi suggested that school districts,
which did not know how to invite parents to become part of the
process, could learn from Head Start about parent involvement.
Placing Head Start, which had successfully involved parents for 30
years, into DOE did not seem fair, she said.
Number 1060
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted that Ms. Velardi had been named the
current Head Start Parent of the Year. He asked her what she
thought would happen if those community-based organizations in the
88 communities also became clients.
MS. VELARDI said she had spoken on the regional level to other
people who were attached to school districts; they were often
lacking direction and guidance. She expressed that just being left
alone was not the answer. It was also not good management.
Guidance was needed from a larger entity, as well as coordination
of efforts. Head Start really was a series of small businesses, in
some ways, around the state, she said, supported by state and
federal money.
Number 1165
DEANNA CAPTAIN, Chairperson, Tanana Chiefs Head Start Policy
Council, and a Head Start mother for several years, said she backed
Head Start 100 percent. She voiced concern about the changes in HB
409. If DOE took over Head Start, she felt it would not be
considered a priority, as it was not mandated by the state. She
feared it would be first in line to be cut from the budget. She
spoke about Head Start's focus on family unity and said her
community wanted to see Head Start continue under DCRA. She
explained that Head Start was not a day care program, but also
provided socialization skills for children, as well as education in
nutrition, safety and health.
Number 1290
MS. CAPTAIN explained that Head Start recognized the parent as the
first educator. In Ruby, she said, nine children were enrolled in
the Head Start home-based program. She added that she would
support an alcohol and tobacco tax, a percentage of which she
wished to see go into the children's trust fund.
Number 1328
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Ms. Captain to elaborate on why she
thought Head Start was so successful in the present department, as
opposed to shifting it to DOE.
MS. CAPTAIN responded that under DCRA, the program was family-
oriented. If taken over by DOE, she felt the emphasis would be
different because Head Start was not mandated, but rather
community-based and optional. She feared cuts to the program.
Number 1400
CO-CHAIR IVAN commented that he had hoped to get to the Department
of Administration's estimated moving costs which had been provided
to the committee. He said the committee would address those
estimates at the next meeting. He also asked that Representative
Kelly develop an organizational flow chart for the committee to
view.
Number 1474
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN suggested that a DCRA representative should be
at the table the next time HB 409 was discussed. Through listening
to testimony, Co-Chair Austerman said, he had developed enough
questions to direct to the department. He noted for the benefit of
testifiers that an organizational chart prepared by Representative
Kelly's office existed, showing proposed moves. He said he would
like input on the perceived affects of placing Head Start into the
new Department of Community and Economic Development, rather than
into DOE, as currently proposed under HB 409.
Number 1554
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Representative Kelly whether he
envisioned a sponsor substitute incorporating some of the testimony
and if so, when.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied yes, he was working on that. He added
that there were issues brought up at the first meeting which he had
thought legitimate and sensible; he was making some of those
changes. Whether there would be a sponsor substitute or committee
substitute, he did not know.
Number 1607
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that testimony had suggested that
consolidating DCRA and DCED would hurt the "identity" of rural
Alaska. If that were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he would
not support HB 409, he said; nor did he feel the bill's prime
sponsor would have that intent. He suggested that by dispersing
some programs, if they did go along with the consolidation, maybe
they would be able to raise the identity of rural Alaska. He hoped
it would not become a rural-versus-urban issue. He wanted the
proper recognition to be given to rural Alaska by every department.
However, he had not heard any testimony, to date, that led him to
believe rural Alaska would be harmed at all.
Number 1703
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted that in looking for changes to HB 409, he would
rather deal with individual amendments, preferably simple, rather
than a committee substitute. The fiscal notes involved, he said,
might get confusing if not handled amendment by amendment.
Number 1731
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated that in the previous Saturday's
testimony, a person had spoken about DCRA bridging the gap between
Juneau and rural Alaska, saying they hated to see that bridge
dissolved. People had finally set up communication systems,
Representative Nicholia said, and knew who to deal with in DCRA.
If the apple cart were upset, it would take years again for people
to relearn the system. This bill did upset the system currently in
place.
CO-CHAIR IVAN said that concluded the hearing on HB 409 and
recessed the meeting at 2:33 p.m.
HB 330 - UNINCORP COMMUNITY CAPITAL PROJ GRANTS
TAPE 96-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR IVAN called the meeting back to order at 2:41 p.m. He
noted that committee packets for HB 330 included the bill; the
sponsor statement; affected statutes; a fiscal note from DCRA; a
zero fiscal note from the Department of Administration; letters in
support; and additional backup material. He invited Representative
Carl Moses to present the bill.
Number 0053
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, sponsor of HB 330, explained the bill
called for more equitable distribution in the state's
unincorporated capital project matching grant program by affording
unincorporated communities, existing within boroughs, the chance to
obtain the full $25,000 matching grant. This had been consistently
available to those unincorporated communities that existed outside
of organized boroughs. Communities inside boroughs, which had
shared from a pool of resources obtained by the boroughs, had fared
much less well, on average, than unincorporated communities outside
of boroughs. This bill would restore equity by making communities
within boroughs eligible under the same program currently in place
for outside communities. It would have them adhere to the same
criteria for eligibility; it would correspondingly reduce their
boroughs' eligibility through the municipal capital project
matching grant program to avoid double-dipping. It would also
increase the list of potential applicant communities by up to 60.
Representative Moses noted that participants familiar with the
issue were available to testify via teleconference. He added that
experts were also present to answer technical questions. He
concluded by noting there had been a similar bill in 1964.
Number 0280
CO-CHAIR IVAN referred to the unincorporated communities,
municipalities and second-class cities that received the $25,000
capital matching grants under the program. He asked whether HB 330
affected unincorporated communities not currently eligible or
whether there was a funding disparity among recipients.
Number 0325
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES responded that an unincorporated community
within a borough received less money, sharing in a pool received by
the borough. If it were outside a borough, it received the full
$25,000. In essence, the law discouraged a community from going
into a borough, because it would receive less money under the grant
program.
Number 0366
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN noted that DCRA's fiscal note indicated
approximately 60 unincorporated communities could participate; the
fiscal note starting in 1996 was for $42 million, increasing to $49
million in FY 2001. He thought HB 330 was a good bill and that the
committee should go ahead and move it out; the only question would
probably be the fiscal note, he said. He added that the bill would
go to the House Finance Committee next, where the fiscal note
should be discussed.
Number 0425
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES clarified the amounts were not millions of
dollars, but thousands. He noted that in the similar 1964
legislation, there was no fiscal note attached, indicating DCRA
felt it could handle it within its budget.
Number 0442
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he had no problem with moving it from
committee. He said it was a great program for unorganized
communities outside of boroughs; it ought to be a great program for
those inside boroughs as well. He added that they should not
penalize everyone else by not funding the program and having the
money taken from other people's budgets. He encouraged the
legislature to take the second step, to not only authorize it, but
to fund it as well.
Number 0483
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted that the sponsor had said unincorporated
communities belonging to a borough received less than those in
unorganized boroughs. This seemed like a reverse of policy. He
added it was in the state's interest to organize communities in as
many areas as possible.
Number 0513
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Representative Moses about the grant
monies available. Specifically, he wondered if there was a set
amount of money, without adding any to the grant program, to
disburse to the various communities.
Number 0550
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES replied more could be added to it.
Technically, though, it would be pro rata among the communities,
slightly decreasing the present allotments unless money were added.
He emphasized that the amounts should be equitable to all
unincorporated communities, without penalizing those that had
joined a borough. In essence, he said, that would encourage
communities to disassociate themselves from boroughs.
Number 0598
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT responded that was basically what he was
driving at; he did not think more money needed to be added to the
program. It would be nice, he said, but not required. It was an
equitability issue and it would be the only fair thing to do.
Number 0624
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he thought that was exactly right. They
did not have to expand the pie. However, if they did not,
everybody would get less, which he did not favor. If the program
was good for those now receiving it, it should be good for others.
If they did not expand the pie, people would be penalized because
the legislature did the right thing by expanding the program to
other communities. He thought HB 330 was equitable and fair and
ought to be moved out of committee. However, he hoped the
legislature would think about making the pie a little bigger to
accommodate the new communities without penalizing the existing
ones.
Number 0687
WALT WREDE, Manager, Lake and Peninsula Borough, testified via
teleconference from King Salmon in favor of HB 330. He said the
bill would implement the original intent of the program, as he
understood it, fixing a problem that had existed for several years.
He explained the Lake and Peninsula Borough area was adversely
affected by the program as it now existed. The borough had 11
unincorporated villages, representing almost half the borough's
population, that did not qualify for the $25,000 matching grant
funds.
Number 0774
MR. WREDE explained that in 1995, the Lake and Peninsula Borough
received a grant of $44,000, to be divided up among the 11
communities; they expected to receive approximately the same amount
for 1996. He noted that $4,000 was not much money. If each
village was guaranteed $25,000 per year, that would total $275,000
per year. He added that communities could roll funds over from
year to year, which would allow money to accumulate.
Number 0827
MR. WREDE cited a number of reasons why he felt the current system
was unfair. He noted that Representative Elton had spoken
eloquently about the fairness issue. Mr. Wrede said the way the
program was currently set up hurt economic development and
investment in capital improvements in the borough. There was also
a policy issue, which Co-Chair Ivan had mentioned, where the state
was trying to downsize and transfer more responsibility to local
governments. Mr. Wrede felt that was good, but said the current
grant program acted as a disincentive to forming organized
boroughs. He reiterated that the borough strongly supported HB
330.
Number 0990
DAN SALMON, Administrator, Village of Igiugig, testified via
teleconference from King Salmon. He explained that Igiugig, a
small village of approximately 40 people that swelled to 150 - 200
in the summertime due to tourism, was located at the west end of
Lake Iliamna, within the Lake and Peninsula Borough. He said HB
330 greatly affected his community. Igiugig currently funded its
own preschool, snow removal, street maintenance, refuse disposal
and so forth. Funds to garner capital projects were difficult to
obtain. The village lacked sufficient bulk fuel storage
facilities, fire fighting equipment, emergency services facilities,
and equipment to build and maintain projects, among other things.
As intended originally, Mr. Salmon said, the grant program would
have been an avenue for Igiugig to realize its economic development
goals and plans. It also would have created a level playing field
for communities.
Number 1067
MR. SALMON said right now, his village could not compete with
unincorporated villages in unorganized boroughs. Igiugig, with its
$4,000 grants, had to compete for projects with communities that
could put up $25,000. That inequitable distribution of money had
resulted in less major capital projects being accomplished in his
community. He said Igiugig supported HB 330, as he was sure other
similarly situated villages would.
Number 1165
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved that HB 300 move from committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
CO-CHAIR IVAN informed members that the committee would address
Executive Order 93, HB 391 and HB 358 at the next meeting on
Thursday, February 8.
Number 1200
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CO-CHAIR IVAN adjourned
the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee meeting at 2:55
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|