Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/19/1994 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 1994
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair
Rep. Con Bunde, Co-Chair
Rep. Gary Davis, Vice Chair
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Harley Olberg
Rep. Bettye Davis
Rep. Irene Nicholia
Rep. Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Al Vezey
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Rep. Jerry Mackie
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 312: "An Act relating to the school term, school
construction grants and to interscholastic school
activities; relating to a pilot project for state
aid for special education; and providing for an
effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SB 70: "An Act establishing a loan guarantee and interest
rate subsidy program for assistive technology."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY WIGET
Legislative Liaison
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr Road
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-3195
Phone: (907) 269-2255
Position Statement: Testified in support of CSSB 312
(spoke via offnet)
DR. BRENT ROCK, Assistant Superintendent
Administrative Services
Anchorage School District
4600 DeBarr Road
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-3195
Phone: (907) 269-2255
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to Section 1 of
CSSB 312 (spoke via offnet)
DUANE GUILEY, Director
Division of Education Finance and Support Services
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Phone: (907) 465-2891
Position Statement: Testified on CSSB 312
BOB BELL, Principal Teacher
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District
Razdolna School
P.O. Box 15098
Fritz Creek, Alaska 99603
Phone: (907) 235-6870
Position Statement: Testified in support of CSSB 312
(spoke via offnet)
PATRICK CASE, Member
Kenai Peninsula School District Council PTA
3931 Nielson Cir.
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: (907) 235-6816
Position Statement: Testified on CSSB 312
(spoke via teleconference)
ROXANNE STEWART, Legislative Aide
Sen. Jim Duncan
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-4766
Position Statement: Testified in support of CSSB 70
STAN RIDGEWAY, Deputy Director
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Department of Education
801 W. 10th St., Ste. 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Phone: (907) 465-6932
Position Statement: Testified in support of CSSB 70
EARL CLARK
Independent Living Specialist
Southeast Alaska Independent Living Center
9163 Parkwood
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 789-9235
Position Statement: Testified in support of CSSB 70
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 312
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION GRANT REVIEW
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/94 2830 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2830 (S) HES, FIN
03/16/94 (S) HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
03/16/94 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/18/94 3265 (S) HES RPT CS 4DP 3NR NEW TITLE
03/18/94 3265 (S) ZERO FN TO SB & CS (DOE)
03/21/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
03/23/94 (S) FIN AT 08:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
04/05/94 3445 (S) FIN RPT 2DP 2DNP 1NR (HES)CS
04/05/94 3446 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DOE)
04/07/94 (S) RLS AT 09:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
04/08/94 3526 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/8/94
04/08/94 3528 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/08/94 3528 (S) HES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/08/94 3528 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/08/94 3528 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
312(HES)
04/08/94 3528 (S) PASSED Y16 N1 E2 A1
04/08/94 3529 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE
04/08/94 3529 (S) Adams NOTICE OF RECONSID
ERATION
04/11/94 3566 (S) RECON TAKEN UP/IN THIRD READING
04/11/94 3566 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO
4/12 CALENDAR
04/12/94 3605 (S) IN THIRD READING ON
RECONSIDERATION
04/12/94 3605 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 2
UNAN CONSENT
04/12/94 3606 (S) AM NO 2 MOVED BY LITTLE &
PEARCE
04/12/94 3606 (S) AM NO 2 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/12/94 3606 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/12/94 3606 (S) MOTION TO RETURN TO 2ND FOR
AM #1
04/12/94 3607 (S) HELD ON RECON IN 3RD RDG TO
4/13 CAL
04/13/94 3642 (S) MOTION TO RETURN TO 2ND
WITHDRAWN
04/13/94 3642 (S) RETURN TO 2ND FOR AM #3 ADPT
Y11 N9
04/13/94 3643 (S) AM NO 3 MOVED BY LINCOLN
04/13/94 3643 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y9 N11
04/13/94 3643 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/13/94 3644 (S) AM NO 4 NOT OFFERED
04/13/94 3644 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 5 UNAN
CONSENT
04/13/94 3645 (S) AM NO 5 MOVED BY LITTLE &
LEMAN
04/13/94 3645 (S) AM TO AM 5 MOVED BY TAYLOR
04/13/94 3646 (S) AM TO AM 5 ADOPTED Y11 N9
04/13/94 3646 (S) AM NO 5 AS AM ADOPTED Y13 N7
04/13/94 3647 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/13/94 3647 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION
Y12 N8
04/13/94 3647 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y18 N2
04/13/94 3651 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/14/94 3423 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/14/94 3423 (H) HES, FINANCE
04/19/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 70
SHORT TITLE: ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DUNCAN,Ellis,Little,Taylor,Kelly,
Salo,Pearce,Leman,Rieger,Frank,Kerttula,Zharoff;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Davies
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/93 170 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/27/93 170 (S) HES, LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
02/10/93 322 (S) COSPONSOR: ELLIS
03/22/93 (S) HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
03/22/93 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/23/93 910 (S) HES RPT 5DP
03/23/93 910 (S) FISCAL NOTE (DOE)
01/25/94 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
01/25/94 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
01/28/94 2629 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LITTLE
02/22/94 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
02/23/94 2935 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
02/23/94 2935 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS
PUBLISHED (DOE)
03/10/94 3145 (S) FIN RPT 5DP (L&C)CS
SAME TITLE
03/10/94 3145 (S) PREVIOUS FN (DOE)
03/10/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/10/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/10/94 (S) FIN AT 08:30 AM SENATE FINANCE
03/16/94 3243 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 DO
PASS 3/16
03/16/94 3243 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/16/94 3243 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/16/94 3244 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/16/94 3244 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR, KELLY,
SALO,
03/16/94 3244 (S) PEARCE, LEMAN, RIEGER, FRANK,
KERTTULA,
03/16/94 3244 (S) ZHAROFF
03/16/94 3244 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
70(L&C)
03/16/94 3244 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E1 A1
03/16/94 3244 (S) Taylor NOTICE OF RECONSID
ERATION
03/18/94 3276 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
03/18/94 3278 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/21/94 2895 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/21/94 2895 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/21/94 2916 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): DAVIES
04/19/94 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-68, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:09 p.m., noted
members present and announced the calendar. He brought SB
312 to the table.
SB 312 - SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION GRANT REVIEW
CHAIR BUNDE explained that Rep. Jerry Mackie would address
the bill, but as he had not arrived, the committee would
hear testimony.
Number 010
LARRY WIGET, Legislative Liaison, Anchorage School District,
testified via offnet in support of CSSB 312. He stated that
Dr. Brent Rock would be testifying after him. He thanked
the committee for the passage of HB 505 on behalf of the
Anchorage School District. He said the Anchorage School
District supports Section 2 of CSSB 312 as it is believed it
will provide the district with greater flexibility. He also
indicated that the district supports Section 4, as it would
allow a district to develop appropriate alternative methods
to meet the educational needs of students at resource and
self-contained levels. Section 4 would also allow the
district to maintain the current level of funding while
developing alternative methods for program delivery.
MR. WIGET indicated that the district would prefer the pilot
to be expanded to include appropriate students receiving
intensive services while maintaining the level of funds form
the prior year. He further indicated that the number of
allowed pilot projects is very limited, especially when each
project can last up to three years. Under HB 522 only four
projects would be accepted at any one time. He said he
would like to see that extended.
MR. WIGET encouraged the passage of the aforementioned
sections, but indicated that the district stands in
opposition against Section 1. He stated that the section
would allow the Department of Education (DOE) to modify a
project request when necessary to achieve cost effective
school construction and would require that school
construction in a project be phased. He then asked Dr.
Brent Rock to address the issue of Section 1.
Number 131
DR. BRENT ROCK, Assistant Superintendent, Administrative
Services, Anchorage School District, testified via offnet in
opposition to Section 1 of CSSB 312. He stated that
although the district appreciates the efforts of the DOE and
the legislature in attempting to address containing school
construction costs, he felt the DOE's proposed criteria
remains too subjective in areas that require objectivity.
He asserted that Section 1 would usurp local control and
would not address unhoused student needs.
DR. ROCK referred to AS 14.11.013 (c) as amended and said it
would further erode local control in making decisions
concerning cost effective school construction. He indicated
that currently the DOE requires that certain subjective
criteria must be met, including a maximum of 100 square feet
per student maximum for elementary schools and 150 square
feet per student for secondary schools. He felt that
criteria is acceptable. He further stated that if the
district had control at the local level, cost saving
measures could be realized. He felt that if the decisions
were made by the DOE, it may end up costing the district
more money.
DR. ROCK stated that with the authority provided for in CSSB
312, the DOE could force a district to use cheaper materials
to lower costs, thereby lowering the life expectancy of the
building and at the same time increasing maintenance costs.
He added that the last six schools constructed in the
district are prototypical schools and if the bond issues
pass, more prototypical schools will be constructed. He
explained that if the DOE were to modify a current spec, it
would "change the programmatic responsibility that we have
to our students." He asserted that the district stays well
within the current criteria of the DOE, which stipulates a
ratio of 100 square feet per student at the elementary level
and 150 on a secondary level. He asserted that the method
is an effective cost saving method.
DR. ROCK further explained that requiring a district to
phase in a project rather than completing it at the time of
initial construction could increase the overall costs of the
project. He then explained that the Eagle River\Chugiak
Middle School does not meet the criteria for the number of
students at 100% capacity five years after its initial
opening. He then said, "I would assume that an ideal thing
for DOE to do, under such circumstances, would be say, `we
will only allow you to build a facility that will house the
number of students you're going to have at the end of that
five years.' That sounds good on the surface. It sounds
like it might save you money. But, in reality, it will not
because we have learned through experience that it may not
take five years. It may take seven years; it may take ten
years with that building well built class rooms. And, if we
have to add an addition and an additional design, that cost
is $37 million today may end up costing us $45 to maybe even
$50 million ten years down the road. It doesn't save money
unless it's done deliberately with good reason at the local
level."
Number 403
MR. WIGET reiterated the district's support of the Sections
2 and 3 and their opposition to Section 1.
CHAIR BUNDE indicated that Rep. Jerry Mackie was present to
address the bill.
Number 425
REP. JERRY MACKIE addressed CSSB 312. He stated that he
drafted the legislation and asked the Senate Finance
Committee to introduce the bill. He explained that the
proposal started out as a simple bill that consisted only of
Section 1. He indicated that Sections 2 and 3 were added in
the Senate. He said Duane Guiley would address those
sections.
REP. MACKIE further stated that the DOE should have the
authority to modify school requests and phase projects if
necessary. He explained that there will be declining
revenues in the future, therefore less funds will be
expended on school construction. He explained that of the
numerous school construction and maintenance projects
currently on the statewide list, the DOE does not have much
control presently over the amount for which the school
districts are asking. He said in some cases there has been
no planning, feasibility studies, or even design research
for the schools themselves. Subsequently, he asserted that
there has been a circumstance of "over kill" in the building
of schools, including in his own district. He stated that
to efficiently address the future needs of the school list
the DOE will phase school construction and maintenance
projects. He further indicated that most schools just
submit to the DOE a request of what they would like to have
for their community in the form of a school. He said the
amounts requested usually are not based on design research
and planning.
REP. MACKIE asserted that the state must become more
fiscally conservative and address the basic needs for school
construction and build more for less. He maintained that
prototypical schools can be tailor built to withstand the
elements that are specific to its region. He also said it
is possible to have one design to facilitate the enrollment
for a particular region. He felt these measures would
eliminate construction projects that are an "architect's
dream." He related to the committee that in his district in
the town of Tenakee a lavish school was built for a total of
ten students. He said the electricity alone cost $50,000
per year. He reiterated that the DOE needs the ability to
make decisions to prevent unwarranted spending and the
districts need to work with the DOE in justifying they're
requests and the costs. He asserted that if the costs
cannot be justified, the DOE would have the ability to make
the necessary reduction.
REP. MACKIE further explained that currently the DOE can
only reject a project in its entirety, which would set a
district back at least one year, and they would have to
reapply for a place on the statewide list. He asserted that
through a negotiation process, problems could be worked out
with the DOE and an acceptable project could be agreed upon
that would be economically feasible and would also meet the
needs of all involved.
REP. MACKIE said he was aware of the criticism involved
because to make the changes, money must be involved. He
asserted that the DOE is in a position to evaluate those
concerns and they need the authority to make difficult
decisions. He felt the legislature would make decisions
based on politics and the process would suffer. He thought
it would be more realistic to have the DOE make those
decisions.
Number 648
(Chair Bunde indicated that Rep. Brice arrived at 3:11 p.m.
and Rep. Nicholia arrived at 3:17 p.m.)
CHAIR BUNDE asked Duane Guiley to address Sections 2 and 3.
REP. B. DAVIS indicated that she had questions for the DOE.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested holding questions until the bill had
been completely addressed. He also indicated that if it
seems advisable, he would like to pass the CSSB 312 out of
committee.
REP. MACKIE asserted that legislation resulted from a
meeting he had with Commissioner Jerry Covey from the DOE,
Duane Guiley, and various other people in the legislature.
He deferred to Mr. Guiley to address the remainder of the
bill.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Rep. Mackie why, as a House member, did he
bring the legislation through the Senate and not the House
first?
REP. MACKIE explained that he approached the House Finance
Committee, who agreed to introduce it. He said because of
the Finance Committee's workload, they could not give it
much attention. He said the Senate "passed it over and this
became the vehicle."
CHAIR BUNDE observed that Rep. Mackie began at the Finance
level.
REP. MACKIE agreed and said the legislation started late in
the process. He felt the only chance the bill would have
for passing would be if the Finance Committee in either body
would introduce it.
MR. GUILEY asked if he should continue to address Section 2.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested that Mr. Guiley proceed in whichever
manner was comfortable for him.
MR. GUILEY indicated that he had written testimony on
Section 1.
CHAIR BUNDE encouraged Mr. Guiley to proceed.
DUANE GUILEY, Director, Division of Education Finance and
Support Services, Department of Education, stated that CSSB
312 was not intended to give the DOE unilateral authority in
relation to school construction projects. He said SB 7
created the Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review Committee.
He explained that one of the statutory obligations of the
committee is to develop criteria for school construction,
provided that the criteria takes into account cost effective
school construction. It then becomes the obligation of the
DOE to carry out that criteria in awarding school
construction grants. He noted CSSB 312 suggests that the
DOE can modify a project budget request for the purpose of
achieving cost effective construction that is approved by
the committee. The DOE would be provided the opportunity to
phase a capital project request. He indicated that the DOE
would not support phasing a project during the construction
cycle.
MR. GUILEY explained that the application will become more
complex, will require more attachments, and will become more
expensive for the districts to accomplish. He said in
recognition of that, the Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review
Committee felt that resource needed to be provided to
districts to develop the application. He further explained
that the phasing being proposed is for the planning and
design of a project before a construction grant is awarded.
Those districts that have the necessary resources to carry
out the proper planning and design prior to applying for a
school construction grant would not be required to have
their project phased. He said phasing would occur only in
situations where a district does not have sufficient
resources at the local level to complete the application
process for a full construction grant.
MR. GUILEY pointed out that there was some confusion as to
the intent of the phasing aspect of the bill. He indicated
that currently the DOE can reject a project if it is
determined that it is not in the best interest of the state.
If a project is rejected, he asserted that the decision is
not appealable by a district, therefore the DOE already has
total unilateral authority in relation to a project
application. The DOE is suggesting through the
administrations that the authority be added to by giving the
DOE the opportunity, during the review process, to amend a
project's scope or budget. He indicated that those
decisions are appealable through the established process.
He maintained that it does not delay the district another
year. It provides the DOE to evaluate the project,
prioritize it, and put it on the list. And, if the district
is aggrieved by the decision, it can appeal that process.
MR. GUILEY said currently the DOE can accept an application
and pass it on or reject it and delay the district another
year. He further indicated that currently under statute at
the point when the DOE is signing a grant agreement with a
district, the DOE does have the authority to reduce a
project or change the scope, but only after the legislature
has made the appropriation. He suggested that that
authority would be better placed at the review stage as
opposed to after the appropriation is made.
MR. GUILEY suggested that to alleviate some of the concern
regarding abuse of authority by the DOE, the HESS Committee
might consider deleting lines 9 and 10 on page 1 and insert
the phrase, "require that a school construction project be
phased for the purpose of planning, design, and
construction." He felt the language would further clarify
that the DOE is not asking to phase during a construction
cycle, only on the preplanning stages, to assure solid cost
estimates that are feasible. He indicated that currently
districts must cover all the unknowns in their applications
and that many project budgets are inflated and some are
short funded.
Number 840
REP. TOOHEY asked if there is a geographical cost
differential between Kake and Nome. She asked if the
disparity was considerable.
MR. GUILEY said yes and indicated that the difference could
be 100% or more.
CHAIR BUNDE observed that construction costs vary widely
throughout the state.
REP. TOOHEY asked if it was more the area location and not
the design of the school that is of financial concern.
MR. GUILEY explained that a back log continues to grow on
the project list because the same project is being applied
for year after year for up to six years. He said the first
year the project would be one dollar amount, and the next
year the same exact project is applied for, conditions
haven't changed, and the project budget has increased 60 to
80% with no rationale whatsoever. He asserted that without
planning up front, "we can't defend that project to you."
Number 880
REP. MACKIE stated that seldom does a project go from one
year to the next and the request amount reduces. He
asserted that if the price of lumber goes up then an
adjustment could be made, but it would not allow for a
district to decide that the next year they need an
excessively large auditorium. He observed that the
districts currently have the ability to do just that.
MR. GUILEY addressed the remainder of the bill. He stated
that Section 2 creates an opportunity for the DOE to
consider a school calendar that is less than 180 days,
provided that the school district justifies the educational
program as being the equivalent of 180 days.
Number 903
CHAIR BUNDE questioned as to whether the school day would be
lengthened to allow for a shorter school year.
MR. GUILEY said yes and explained that under existing
statute a day in school session is defined as not less than
four hours for grades 1, 2, and 3 and not less than five
hours for all other grades. Kindergarten is determined to
be four hours for full time equivalent. He said the DOE
would consider the number of hours in session and multiply
them by the number of days in session to determine the
educational equivalent of the 180 day calendar. He further
stated that, "This section of law has a sunset date in it,
and it will be superceded by other law. That's the reason
for Section 3, which puts on to the books a different
opportunity for a school board to adopt a calendar of not
less than 150 days for two purposes: 1) for abating health
hazards in the school and 2) for submitting an acceptable
plan again that provides the educational equivalent of a 180
day school year. Mr. Guiley indicated that the language
already exists in statutes, it sunsetted, and was replaced
by new language. He said CSSB 312 would attempt to put back
on to the books language that had previously been removed.
Number 933
CHAIR BUNDE referred to page 2, line 13, and asked how often
that stipulation is used. He said it seemed to him that if
there is an earthquake and the school is closed for a month,
"...we're not going to say the children were in school that
month."
MR. GUILEY said that section is used approximately ten times
a year and they normally are one to three day closures due
to perhaps a roof collapsing or a gas odor wafting
throughout the school. He further indicated that because
the school calendar is set, contracts are let, and teachers
are paid whether they teach or not, the cost to the district
for extending the calendar is sometimes cost prohibitive.
CHAIR BUNDE clarified by saying that closures only happen
approximately five times a year.
MR. GUILEY added that it happens throughout the state.
Number 975
CHAIR BUNDE observed that it seemed strange that the
committee had considered HB 84, that included a provision
that would extend the school year by three days, and now
they are being asked to consider legislation that would
counter that.
REP. OLBERG said, "Mr. Chairman, to clarify my own thinking,
did you say that Section 3 replaces some language that is
sunsetting, and Section 2 adds new language to what has been
replaced?"
MR. GUILEY explained that Section 3 of the bill suggests
that it take effect July 1, 1997. It would be new language
replacing existing Section 2. He stated that Section 2 is
existing language in statute that would be amended in
subsection 4 to provide an opportunity for a district to
submit a plan of not less than 170 days. He further
explained that all of Section 2 would be replaced with
Section 3 on July 1, 1997, as the bill is written.
Number 999
REP. G. DAVIS said, "Mr. Guiley, with the exception of
paragraph 4, isn't that correct?"
MR. GUILEY concurred.
REP. MACKIE added that Section 3 allows the school term to
begin and end on dates fixed by the governing body of a
school district, as long as the term equivalent is not less
than 180 days. He asserted that it would also allow for the
accommodation of situations such as the Russian Orthodox
holidays in certain districts. He said that amendment was
offered by the Senators from the Kenai Peninsula to
accommodate the holidays that are being recognized by
particular schools.
Number 019
CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged that Bob Bell was standing by to
testify via teleconference and that his testimony would be
heard shortly. He asked Mr. Guiley to continue the
sectional analysis.
MR. GUILEY stated that Section 4 of CSSB 312 provides an
opportunity for the DOE to consider applications for pilot
programs for the purpose of reducing the number of students
that are identified as certain special education needs
students. The DOE could set a percentage of students
currently identified in different special education
categories and use that percentage for purposes of funding
the years under which the district is undergoing the pilot
study.
MR. GUILEY explained that the goal of the pilot study would
be to determine alternative methods of delivering services
to those students without attaching a label that identifies
those students as special education students through other
methods, such as early intervention and staff development
and training for regular classroom teachers. He indicated
that there is a limited number of pilot programs that the
DOE can approve and it would not increase the cost to the
state. He said, "It should, in theory, reduce the cost to
the state of Alaska by holding the districts static at the
percentage of students identified by classification. We
find that this is the single largest growing area of our
foundation program." He further explained that year after
year the increase in special education students far out
paces the increase in non-special education students or the
total increase in average daily membership (ADM). At times,
the increase has been as much as 200% of the increase in
ADM. He said he hoped that the pilot study would provide an
opportunity for services to be replicated in other
districts, thereby reducing the funding across the state.
Number 061
CHAIR BUNDE observed that the gifted program is included
under the special education program and asked what effect
there would be regarding the pilot programs.
MR. GUILEY responded that the DOE is currently undergoing a
review of statute and regulation in regards to special
education and education for gifted students is one of the
areas under consideration. He said the pilot proposal that
has been forwarded by at least one school district would
suggest that they hold the gifted and talented percentage
constant as well and not further identify gifted and
talented students. He anticipated that there would be some
changes in regulation or that there would be requests for
some statutory changes overall in the special education area
of funding.
REP. NICHOLIA asked if the proposed changes could be
considered "watering down the program" by integrating those
students into regular classrooms instead of them being in
separate classes.
MR. GUILEY asserted that the pilot program should not be
referred to as watering down the program. It would be
referred to as early intervention and inclusion models. He
stated that current research indicates that special
education students can participate in regular classrooms,
except perhaps for those students that have intensive
classification and multiple handicapping conditions.
Number 108
CHAIR BUNDE urged the committee to hold their questions for
the purpose of time and indicated that minority committee
members needed to be at a meeting at 4:00 p.m.
MR. GUILEY stated that Section 5 would repeal existing
statute relating to the Alaska Student Activities
Association. He said that association has been replaced by
an incorporation of school districts that govern student
activities.
MR. GUILEY explained that Section 6 provides the effective
date for Section 3, which is July 1, 1997.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for testimony from Bob Bell.
Number 132
BOB BELL, Principal Teacher, Razdolna School, Kenai
Peninsula Borough School District, testified via offnet in
support of CSSB 312. He stated that he was particularly
interested in the section of the bill that pertains to a 170
day school term. He said that provision would allow some
schools in the Kenai School District to have the flexibility
to structure their school calendars to meet local needs. He
said it was his hope to increase the length of the school
day to equal or exceed the present instructional hours
specified for the entire year. He felt that, in the long
run, students would receive a better education. He also
felt that there are sufficient safeguards in the bill that
would prohibit districts from abusing the issue of the
shorter school year.
TAPE 94-68, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Guiley if the districts would be
required to match what would be accomplished in 180 days if
they shorten the school year.
MR. GUILEY said they would have to match or exceed what is
expected from a 180 day session.
CHAIR BUNDE, seeing no further testimony, asked if there
were any questions for Rep. Mackie or Mr. Guiley.
Number 028
REP. B. DAVIS indicated that the only problem she has with
the bill falls in Section 1 of the proposal. She said
either more work needs to be done to the section or perhaps
it should be deleted altogether because it gives even more
power to the DOE. She felt the decisions should be left to
local school districts to decide what the various components
would be for the construction of new schools or maintenance
projects. She referred to the statement that Mr. Guiley
made that indicated that those districts that have the
necessary resources to carry out the proper planning and
design, prior to applying for a school construction grant,
would not be required to have their project phased and she
said that stipulation is not in the proposal. She felt that
concern needed to be identified within the bill. She also
indicated that according to Mr. Guiley's testimony it is
already possible for the DOE to stop a construction project.
She then asked how many times the DOE had stopped a
construction project.
Number 080
MR. GUILEY said in the three years that he has been with the
DOE, no projects have been stopped. He stated that the DOE
has prorated their share of funding on projects where
districts wanted to build more than the gross square foot
guidelines. He asserted that the DOE has not tried to stop
a project or has not disallowed a district to do something.
He said the DOE decisions only relate to the level of
funding that they will participate in.
REP. B. DAVIS asked Mr. Guiley if the DOE would limit their
decision making to funding involved and not the planning and
design phases of the projects. She asked, if the DOE had
not already been doing that in the past, why would they want
the authority to do it now?
MR. GUILEY explained that the passage of SB 7 last year
created the review committee and charged them with
obligation of developing school construction design
criteria. He said it was not previously an obligation of
the DOE, but it is now the obligation of the committee.
REP. B. DAVIS asserted that the issue should be addressed by
providing more regulations for the committee, not by giving
more authority to the DOE. She then asked if the
legislation would give the DOE the power to stop a project
either in the planning, design, or construction phases.
MR. GUILEY asserted that the intent of the legislation is to
provide planning grant funds for those districts that cannot
accomplish the application process with their own resources.
The intent is not to stop projects. He reiterated that if a
district has the resource to complete the application, to do
the building evaluation and the condition survey with their
own funds, and to recover those funds through the grant
application, they would be afforded that opportunity, which
was at the suggestion of the Bond Reimbursement and Grant
Review Committee.
REP. B. DAVIS maintained that what is written in the
legislation does not speak to what Mr. Guiley was saying.
According to Mr. Guiley's testimony, she said it was her
understanding that if a school district has its own design
team and staff, it would not preclude them from completing
the application with their own resources. She said if a
district needed assistance the DOE would guide them. She
said the proposal does not stipulate that.
Number 171
REP. MACKIE responded that the intent of the bill is to put
the authority into the statute and not into regulation,
because regulation changes and the scope of criteria could
change from one year to the next or one committee to the
next. He reiterated that the legislation would give the DOE
the statutory authority to carry out those decisions.
REP. B. DAVIS asked Rep. Mackie if he felt that the
legislation does not speak to all school districts. She
then indicated that to put this language into statute
without provisions for districts such as the Anchorage
School District that does not need the type of legislation
being proposed, would not be fair.
REP. MACKIE pointed out that the legislation says that the
DOE "may" modify a request or "may" require that
construction be phased, which would give the DOE the ability
to exercise the authority where necessary. He asserted that
the provision does not say "shall."
Number 218
REP. G. DAVIS said "Bettye's right. There's a lot of `trust
me' in this. But, the department certainly is not going to
want to phase everything. They're not going to want to cut
and deny projects where it's not necessary. I just see this
as a stop gap. And, they need something in statute that's
going to address the entire state. And, I think where there
are school districts that there are school districts that
have planning personnel and do the job correctly and watch
out for the dollars as does the majority of the large
districts." He also indicated that he felt that the DOE
would not want to scrutinize projects in any more detail
than they do now. He said, even under more financially
difficult times, there will still be districts wanting to
build "Taj Mahals." In those cases, the DOE would have the
statutory authority to step in and address the issue
properly.
Number 258
CHAIR BUNDE asked for testimony from Patrick Case.
Number 260
PATRICK CASE, Member, Kenai Peninsula School District
Council PTA, testified via teleconference on CSSB 312. He
stated that he agreed with the previous comments made. He
then asked if the legislation gives power to the state to
change their level of contribution after a school project
has been "approved by bond, by the voters?"
Number 283
MR. GUILEY said no.
MR. CASE indicated that he is currently involved with the
project for a new elementary school in Homer and that there
are committees working with the district to use a prototype
school with minor changes to fit the needs of the particular
area's particular programs. He then asked if the
legislation would give the DOE the ability to "line-item
veto any design changes in the plan?"
MR. GUILEY explained that the DOE would have the authority
to make changes if there is a more cost effective way of
accomplishing a specific design item in regards to
evaluating the project request. The review committee is
obligated to evaluate prototypical designs to determine cost
effective school construction. He stated that the committee
supports prototypical type design and acknowledges that
there is a savings overall in the project cost to the state
by utilizing prototypical type designs.
Number 335
REP. MACKIE added that the prototypical design system that
has been used in the Kenai Peninsula is a model for the
state that has worked quite effectively and has saved a lot
of money over the last several years. He maintained that
the bill would affect districts much like his own. He said
the legislation would not adversely affect rural schools
because over a ten year period, if a considerable amount of
money is saved by building prototypical schools, there is a
greater possibility of getting further down the statewide
list. Rep. Mackie asserted that all districts would need to
justify to the DOE exactly what they need and what the
project will cost.
CHAIR BUNDE asked how long the minority members of the
committee would be able to stay.
REP. B. DAVIS indicated that she would stay as long as
needed.
CHAIR BUNDE said he would appreciate everyone's
participation as he would like to pass the bill out of
committee if the issue can be resolved. He then referred to
page 1, line 9, and proposed an amendment that would delete
item 2 and replace it with the phrase, "require that a
school construction project be phased for purposes of
planning, design, and construction..." He asked if there
were any objections.
REP. NICHOLIA explained that the Tok School District has a
school that has gone through the phase process. She said
presently it is number 15 on the list. She asked if the DOE
could guarantee their construction.
MR. GUILEY asserted that the DOE could never guarantee that
construction would be finished because the appropriation
must be approved by the legislature. He said the Tok School
was not phased by the DOE. It was phased through the
legislative process by short-funding the project and asking
the district if they were willing to accept that short-
funding for purposes of beginning the project. He indicated
that the district did accept that appropriation and began
the project. Then last year, the Tok School District made a
request for final funding which was fully funded by the
legislature, short of the match. He said, "The district
found that in finishing the construction they, in fact, are
short-funded. So, now they need more money." The phasing
of that project was not considered by the DOE. He said the
DOE forwarded a full funding request for the construction
phase. He said, "We don't want to see any more Tok
projects." He asserted that the DOE wants to consider bid
projects that are fully funded.
CHAIR BUNDE directed the committee's attention to the
amendment before them and asked if there were any
objections.
REP. B. DAVIS explained that she had no concerns regarding
the amendment, but suggested that additional language should
be added perhaps in another subsection.
CHAIR BUNDE said he felt that the amendment would address
some people's concern and that any additional language would
be considered after the amendment is voted on. Hearing no
objections, Chair Bunde indicated that Amendment 1 was
adopted.
Number 519
REP. OLBERG asked if the state actually pays anywhere from
60 to 100% of school construction costs.
MR. GUILEY replied that the actual current range is 65 to
98%.
REP. OLBERG maintained that the percentage would make the
state the majority partner in any school and that the state
should have a say in how the projects go together. He
further indicated that he agreed with Rep. Mackie that if
standardized designs that are deemed more efficient can be
used and the state stops building "Taj Mahals" everyone will
benefit.
Number 537
REP. G. DAVIS referred to Rep. Nicholia's example and said
it is a perfect example of why phasing is necessary. He
said if a school district believes that they might receive
half of the money needed for their design, it could be
phased as a functional unit that is only half of the entire
project. He further explained that the district would then
wait for the other half of the money, but would still have a
functioning building in the meantime.
REP. B. DAVIS said she was unaware that it was the DOE's
intent to build small units and then add on at a later time.
MR. GUILEY said that it is not the intent of the DOE. He
said a district would design to select a site, purchase the
site, design a building suited to the community's needs,
develop a cost estimate for the design, and then request
construction funding. He indicated that at the point that
the district requests construction funding, it is for the
full amount to complete and audit the project, to equip it,
and to close it out. He reiterated it is not the DOE's
intent to phase the construction process.
Number 588
REP. MACKIE reiterated that the DOE would not be able to
change the scope of the plan in the middle of construction.
He said the cost savings would result from the DOE making
the initial determination of how much the district would
need to fund an appropriate project and that there could be
no additions to the decision after it is made and added to
the list.
REP. OLBERG referred to Rep. G. Davis' statement and said
that a completed project could be phase 1 of a "multi-
building" project, whereby phase 1 would be built as a
complete project and at some point in the future phase 2
could be built.
REP. MACKIE stated that a school district may decide to do
it that way.
REP. OLBERG observed that each phase would have to stand
alone as a completed project with all funding in place.
Number 625
REP. TOOHEY declared her support for the legislation but
said that Rep. B. Davis' concerns are valid and that she
hoped they would be addressed.
REP. B. DAVIS maintained that Anchorage has been using
prototypical designs for quite some time. She then asked
Mr. Guiley what the DOE would do differently under the
language in the proposal that is not already being done.
She said if districts are busy building Taj Mahals, it is
because the DOE has approved the projects.
MR. GUILEY explained that what is common place today is that
districts, once they receive the appropriation, are
designing the building to the appropriation dollar amount as
opposed to what their need is. He argued that currently
when a district applies for a school construction grant,
most districts have no idea where they're going to build,
what they're going to build, how they're going to build it,
and who's going to build it. He said most don't even have a
site selected and indicated that site selection costs in the
state vary from zero to $5 million. He stated that the
districts try to cover themselves by giving high estimates.
He explained that when the project bids are open, many times
the project construction cost is less than what they
anticipated, but districts always find a way to expend the
balance of the money through added enhancements. He
asserted that the DOE rarely receives a check back from the
school districts because the project was over funded.
Number 683
REP. B. DAVIS said, "I understand what you're saying, but I
don't see... first of all, you don't have the expertise in
DOE to do all the things that you are saying you `may' do in
this particular bill." She asserted that the corrections
must be made in the front end, not after the district has
found a site and planned and designed a building. She also
said it is her understanding that if the districts can fund
the application process themselves, the DOE will "leave
those districts alone." She asserted that the DOE would
only assist those districts that need help.
REP. MACKIE stated that for the very reasons that Rep. B.
Davis specified, the legislation was proposed to give the
DOE the authority to address problems from the beginning.
MR. GUILEY referred to page 3 of the report attached to the
written testimony from the DOE which states that districts
should be required to submit standardized facility
evaluations on existing educational facilities within the
district as a prerequisite to school capital improvement
funding in fiscal year (FY) 1998. He indicated that the
review committee adopted the recommendation and is charged
with establishing a form of application for school
construction projects. He explained that the committee
submitted the report to the DOE and the commissioner has
accepted the recommendation. He further explained that the
DOE will require more information to be attached to the
applications. He also stated that some of that information
may cost as much as $40,000 to develop. He indicated that
there are districts that don't have the resource to develop
the application without some assistance from the state. He
asserted that the CSSB 312 would give the state the
opportunity to provide assistance to districts who need it.
Number 734
REP. B. DAVIS asked where the money would come from, citing
that it is not listed in the fiscal note.
MR. GUILEY said the funds would come from the capital
construction funding process by which districts would submit
their six year plan on September 1. The DOE would then
present a list through the governor's office to the
legislature for funding. He indicated that the fiscal note
would be whatever the legislature appropriates. He stated
that if a district did not have the resource to get beyond
the planning stage, the legislature would be asked to fund
planning grants in a prioritized sequence.
CHAIR BUNDE suggested that Rep. B. Davis offer some language
that might address her concerns.
REP. B. DAVIS said she did not have the language, but
indicated that Mr. Guiley had said that districts that have
already met the criteria need not be included in the
legislation. She felt the issue should be clearly addressed
within the bill. She felt that Mr. Guiley's testimony
aligned with her feeling that the decisions should be made
by the districts and that more authority should not be given
to the DOE.
Number 776
CHAIR BUNDE observed that the Anchorage School District
would come to the DOE with a plan in place, but the Kake
School District would ask the DOE for planning money before
they asked for the school. He pointed out that a district
that pays its own way may not want to be under "this
umbrella." He then asked Mr. Guiley if there was language
that could address the issue.
CHAIR BUNDE then indicated that Mr. Guiley was busy working
on the language and asked Rep. Mackie to respond.
REP. MACKIE said, "It just says that the department may do
it." He explained that if a rural school district needed
money for planning, they would request the money and submit
an application. If a school district does not need money
for planning because they already have their own planning
staff, they won't ask for phase 1, they will request the
school because they have already designed it.
Number 821
REP. B. DAVIS asked Mr. Guiley how exactly the legislation
will be implemented if it is passed and how the school
districts will be made aware which districts will or will
not be affected.
REP. TOOHEY referred to Section 1, line 6, and suggested
that the provision addresses Rep. B. Davis' concerns.
CHAIR BUNDE disagreed and said a district might not request
assistance for planning, but could still submit a plan for a
Taj Mahal. He asked Mr. Guiley to address Section 1 again.
MR. GUILEY stated that under circumstances where the Bond
Reimbursement and Grant Review Committee has already adopted
the idea and forwarded it to the commissioner, and he has
already accepted the recommendations, for applications
beginning in FY 1996, districts will be required to attach
to the application a standardized educational adequacy
survey document.
CHAIR BUNDE said the survey document is essentially a plan.
MR. GUILEY explained that it is a plan that evaluates the
existing facility in relation to the educational plan that
is the desire of the community for that building. He said a
national model is being used that was developed by the
Council of Educational Facility Planners, Inc. He further
explained that in addition to that document there will be a
detailed architectural and engineering study of the existing
facilities that will be required as an attachment to the
application. Based upon the research, he stated that in
some cases that document may cost as much as $40,000 to
produce. He asserted that the aforementioned will be
required attachments in order to receive funding. They will
be prerequisites before a district can be put on the list.
He said if a district does not have the documents, they
won't be on the list. He recapped by saying the committee
suggests, the commissioner accepts, and the DOE produces the
form.
MR. GUILEY further stated that because of the training
necessary to accomplish the standardized documents, the
process must be delayed one year. He said initially the DOE
intended to have the applications consistent by September 1,
1994, for FY 1996 funding. The committee suggested that the
DOE postpone their time line one year and require the
applications for FY 1997 funding. He said if CSSB 312
passed, he envisioned that on the FY 1997 list there would
be districts requesting planning money only. The FY 1996
list will be similar to what has been seen in the past.
Number 908
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Guiley if he had language that would
address concerns regarding districts that would do their own
planning.
MR. GUILEY asserted that based on Amendment 1 that the
committee adopted, the word require might be superceded with
the words, "for districts that do not have the resource to
accomplish the planning and design phases of the projects,
require that a school construction project be phased for
purposes of planning, design, and construction;..."
Therefore, if a district has the resource, the DOE cannot
require phased funding.
CHAIR BUNDE asked Mr. Guiley to write out the language and
to read it to the committee.
TAPE 94-69, SIDE A
Number 000
REP. B. DAVIS said the review committee sends a
recommendation to the commissioner and the commissioner then
approves the recommendation. She asked if any approval is
needed from the legislature during that process.
Number 017
MR. GUILEY stated that the commissioner is responsible for
developing the application form for school construction
projects. Under existing statute, the review committee is
obligated to make suggestions on that application form. He
explained that the review committee has made those
suggestions on the application form to the commissioner, and
he has accepted the recommendations.
REP. B. DAVIS asked if the commissioner is the only one who
can approve or disapprove the application.
CHAIR BUNDE explained that the review committee is comprised
of a member from both the House and the Senate who provide
recommendations to the commissioner. He indicated that any
project that the commissioner does adopt must be funded
through legislative process.
REP. B. DAVIS asked if there was a public hearing process.
She stated that the review committee makes the
recommendations and the commissioner implements them.
CHAIR BUNDE asserted that the review committee is a wide
representation of the educational community. He then read
the proposed amendment which refers to subsection 2, page 1,
line 9: "For districts that do not have the resources
necessary to accomplish planning and design phases of the
project, can require that school construction projects be
phased for purposes of planning, design, and
construction;..." He then asked if the language was
accurate.
Number 128
MR. GUILEY said yes.
CHAIR BUNDE asked for discussion.
REP. NICHOLIA indicated that some rural schools do not bond
and asked Mr. Guiley if the recommendation process would
apply to their grants also.
MR. GUILEY indicated that the Section 1 addresses
eligibility for school construction grants. He said the
discussion is focused on grants only.
REP. NICHOLIA asked if the bill applies to all grants across
the state.
REP. OLBERG said, "Mr. Chairman, there have been hundreds if
not thousands of schools built in this state; some under
construction today. And, all this happened without us doing
anything. And now, we've got a simple two line proposal
here which makes, and maybe that's the problem, it makes
sense to me. And, we're going to expand it into something
that doesn't make sense."
CHAIR BUNDE indicated that a potential amendment was before
the committee for discussion. He said if someone wished to
move the amendment there would be a discussion and a vote if
necessary.
REP. B. DAVIS made a motion to adopt Amendment 2 for
discussion purposes.
REP. OLBERG objected.
Number 191
CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged the objection and repeated the
aforementioned language for Amendment 2. He asked for
discussion. Hearing none, Chair Bunde called for the vote.
REP. B. DAVIS asked exactly what was being voted on.
CHAIR BUNDE indicated that the vote would be to either adopt
Amendment 2 or not.
REP. B. DAVIS stated that she wanted to discuss the
amendment. She said she was unsure if she wanted to adopt
the amendment because she felt that it may not address her
concerns. She referred to those districts who could afford
the planning and design phases but indicated that perhaps
they would say that they can't afford the first phase and
would apply for a grant. She reiterated that the language
in the bill needed to be expanded and to be more specific.
She then asked what advantage a district, that has the money
to afford the first phase, has over a district that doesn't.
She asked if districts that could afford the first phase
would their project get moved faster.
Number 259
REP. OLBERG explained that in theory any district in the
state can apply for a grant.
REP. MACKIE concurred. He also indicated that he was not
favorable to the amendment because it might eliminate a
school that potentially has the money or says they have the
money. He further explained that any school district would
have the right to apply for a grant to do planning.
REP. TOOHEY asked if a district that has applied for a grant
would then be under the financial constraints of the DOE.
MR. GUILEY said currently any portion of school construction
costs that a district chooses to be reimbursed for, at any
time in the future, is under the constraints of statute and
regulation. He explained that if a district proceeds with
planning and design from their own resource, they are still
obligated to follow state statute through that process,
including competitive bidding, length of advertising, gross
square foot guidelines, and all other guidelines that exist.
If the district has the resource to "up-front" the fund,
they have that option. And they can apply for reimbursement
after the fact but would still be subject to constraints.
Number 335
REP. B. DAVIS clarified and said that the district can apply
for reimbursement.
Number 340
CHAIR BUNDE reminded the committee that Amendment 2 was
objected to and called for the vote. Reps. Bunde, G. Davis,
Kott, Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia and Toohey voted Nay.
There were no Yea votes. Chair Bunde declared that
Amendment 2 failed to be adopted. He stated that he felt
CSSB 312 had been thoroughly discussed and asked for a
motion.
Number 370
REP. OLBERG made a motion to pass CSSB 312 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal note.
CHAIR BUNDE, hearing no objections, announced that CSSB 312
was so moved.
(Chair Bunde handed the gavel over to Rep. Toohey to preside
over the remainder of the meeting. Chair Toohey then took a
brief at ease from 3:35 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.)
Number 396
CHAIR TOOHEY brought CSSB 70 to the table.
SB 70 - ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEES
CHAIR TOOHEY asked Roxanne Stewart to testify.
Number 400
ROXANNE STEWART, Legislative Aide to Sen. Jim Duncan,
testified in support of CSSB 70. She stated that the
legislation is similar to HB 139, but indicated that further
clarifications had been made in the Senate bill based on a
report that was received in January from the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR). She indicated that Rep.
Kott had a copy of the report that could be passed around.
She explained that the clarifications that occurred from the
results of the report pertain to the respective
responsibilities of the banking institutions "versus what
happens in the Division of Voc. Rehab." She said the issue
was somewhat unclear in the previous legislation. She
referred to page 2, line 6, and indicated that the language
"lays out the way the loans would be handled." Page 2, line
21, would establish an assistive technology loan committee
within the DVR. She further explained that unlike the House
version, CSSB 70 would prohibit the spending of any state
money on the program. She said if federal funds are no
longer available, the program would no longer be available.
Number 479
REP. KOTT reminded the committee that when HB 139 was heard,
Rep. Vezey had some concerns, but indicated that CSSB 70
addressed those issues as the state would not assume any
financial liability.
CHAIR TOOHEY clarified and said that the loan committee is
not the banking committee.
MS. STEWART said the committee is within the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation.
CHAIR TOOHEY asked who the loan committee is comprised of.
Number 485
MS. STEWART stated that the loan committee would consist of
the director or the director's designee, a representative of
a financial institution that has experience with consumer
loans, and at least one but not more than three persons with
disabilities.
Number 520
CHAIR TOOHEY indicated that the bill would be capitalized
with a minimum of $250,000 instead of the $100,000 that was
specified in HB 139. She asked Ms. Stewart if the issue has
been addressed.
MS. STEWART said, "I think that it has not been explicitly
addressed. I think that at this point, the assistive
technology loan committee, they're not a loan committee,
their actual name evades me at this point. But, Stan
Ridgeway could address that, has indicated that they can
afford to put up $100,000 a year for this program. Any more
than that I think may be difficult. And, Stan Ridgeway from
Voc. Rehab. would probably be a better person to address
that in particular."
REP. KOTT commented that DVR probably has a better gauge of
determining the amount they can put forth than the
legislature does, or whoever is suggesting the $250,000
amount.
CHAIR TOOHEY asked for Stan Ridgeway to testify.
Number 573
STAN RIDGEWAY, Deputy Director, Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation, Department of Education, testified in
support of CSSB 70. He stated that he was available for any
questions. Although, he did offer that during the time that
the two bills had been introduced, DVR has had a group of
consumers working in Anchorage with the banking industry.
During that time the Community Reinvestment Act regulations
have continually changed. He stated that in order for banks
to receive credit for community reinvestment through the
loan program, they must "put up some money." He indicated
that Northrim Bank and Key Bank are willing to deposit money
into the fund if the legislation passes.
Number 608
CHAIR TOOHEY related to Mr. Ridgeway that several visitors
from several groups that "have used or are associated with
the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, and the main
consensus or feeling down there is that they're, and I'm
sure that you have known this, there are groups out there
that feel they're not being represented. And, I think that
was the reason for increasing the number of people on this
committee. I don't know very much about you're department,
but I need to learn more, because there's definite concern
out there of people that feel they're not being equally
treated. And, I don't know if this, raising this more than
three persons will help or not. I just don't know."
Number 636
MR. RIDGEWAY explained that the division has four programs,
Vocational and Rehabilitation, Assistive Technology, Social
Security Claims, and the "ADA (Americans with Disabilities
Act) for the state government." He stated that two of the
programs require that the division have consumer controlled
boards to act as advisory boards that work with Vocational
and Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology. The Vocational
and Rehabilitation Advisory Board, which is made up of 15
members, are all either persons with disabilities or
business representatives that meet four times each year to
advise the division on policy. He asserted that not
everyone that is disabled can be on the board and indicated
that it costs approximately $70,000 to convene the board.
He said the money comes "out of the pot" to serve people
with disabilities. He explained that the advisory board for
Assistive Technology consists of nine members and convenes
four times yearly to provide input. They also have provided
funds for assistive technology loans. He further explained
that the loan committee is a small committee that determines
how much money can be loaned and how much money can be set
aside to buy down interest on loans. He asserted that the
division is trying to operate the loan program so that most
of the funds can be used to leverage loans. He maintained
that the five person committee consisting of one
representative from the Department of Education, one from
the banking industry, and three people with disabilities
should be ample representation.
Number 691
CHAIR TOOHEY asked Earl Clark to testify.
Number 692
EARL CLARK, Independent Living Specialist, Southeast Alaska
Independent Living Center, testified in support of CSSB 70.
He stated that he personally has used the services of DVR as
they facilitated him with a computer. He said the
conversion from a typewriter to computer allowed him to
continue his professional work as he was having much
difficulty with a typewriter. He said DVR taught him how to
use the computer effectively and not only helped him along
in his career, but also perhaps saved him from unnecessary
psychological difficulties. He maintained that he is only
one example "of the type of good that this particular bill
will do for a number of people in this state who can use and
will use assisted devices to help them in employment." He
strongly urged the committee's support of CSSB 70.
Number 756
CHAIR TOOHEY closed public testimony and asked the pleasure
of the committee.
REP. B. DAVIS made a motion to pass CSSB 70 out of committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
CHAIR TOOHEY, hearing no objections, stated that CSCSSB 70
was so moved.
Number 768
Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR
TOOHEY adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|