04/05/2005 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB14 | |
| HB214 | |
| HB13 | |
| Professional Teaching Practices Commission | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| HB 214 | |||
| = | HB 14 | ||
| = | HB 13 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 5, 2005
3:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 14
"An Act relating to disclosure of information about a child or a
child's family to a legislator or a member of a legislator's
staff; and making conforming changes."
- MOVED CSHB 14(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 214
"An Act relating to anatomical gifts and the anatomical gift
donor registry program."
- MOVED CSHB 214(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 13
"An Act relating to reimbursement of municipal bonds for school
construction; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Professional Teaching Practices Commission
Bonnie C. Gaborik - North Pole
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 14
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURES BY FOSTER PARENTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) HES, JUD
03/31/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/31/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/05/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 214
SHORT TITLE: ANATOMICAL GIFTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MCGUIRE
03/09/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/05 (H) STA, HES
03/31/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/31/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/31/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/01/05 (H) STA RPT 3DP 2AM
04/01/05 (H) DP: RAMRAS, ELKINS, SEATON;
04/01/05 (H) AM: LYNN, GATTO
04/05/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 13
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND REIMBURSEMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GATTO, GRUENBERG
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/25/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/25/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/01/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/01/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/01/05 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
02/22/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/22/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/03/05 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/03/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/03/05 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/04/05 (H) EDU RPT 5DP
03/04/05 (H) DP: GARA, GATTO, WILSON, THOMAS, NEUMAN
03/15/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/15/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/22/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/22/05 (H) <subcommittee meeting>
03/29/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/29/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/05 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/05/05 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 14.
HEATHER NOBREGA
Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided additional information regarding
HB 14.
TAMMY SANDOVAL
Acting Deputy Commissioner
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the OCS has a neutral
position on HB 14.
VANESSA TONDINI, Staff
to Representative Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative Lesil
McGuire, sponsor of HB 214.
BRUCE ZALNERAITIS, Executive Director
Life Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 214 and provided
additional information regarding HB 214.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 13.
KIM FLOYD, Officer
Public Information
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 13.
PAT JACKSON, Staff
to Representative Mary Kapsner
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 13, encouraged the
committee to adopt Amendment 1 and provided relevant
information.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:06:46 PM.
Representatives Wilson, Kohring, Seaton, and McGuire were
present at the call to order. Representatives Anderson, Cissna,
and Gardner arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 14-DISCLOSURES BY FOSTER PARENTS
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 14, "An Act relating to disclosure of information
about a child or a child's family to a legislator or a member of
a legislator's staff; and making conforming changes."
3:08:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor, informed the committee that the issue addressed in HB
14 was brought to his attention when reviewing the multiple
problems of the Office of Children's Services (OCS). He
explained that he decided not to include this matter in
Representative Coghill's family right's act because the matter
is peculiar to the legislature. This legislation, HB 14, would
provide legislators and staff further access to information from
foster parents, who are currently unable to converse with
legislators about matters relating to a child in need of aid or
a child under their care.
3:09:29 PM
HEATHER NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Rokeberg, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 14 allows foster parents to call
legislators to discuss a child under their care. She noted that
the language on page 2, line 2, opens up confidential and
privileged information about the [foster] child or his/her
family. However, OCS is opposed to allowing foster parents to
disclose confidential and privileged information about the
foster child's family, and therefore the sponsor is open to
deleting the language referring to the foster child's family.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that currently natural
parents can talk with legislators. He mentioned that
Representative Gardner had spoken with him regarding an
amendment addressing guardians ad litem. He expressed his
desire for the legislation to move forward.
3:11:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING inquired as to why the state is reluctant
to provide the information [regarding the foster child's
family].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG answered that it's probably related to
the state's policy of confidentiality, which he opined is
overreaching and has created a veil of secrecy.
3:12:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the people to whom this
information can be disclosed include a legislator's staff. He
asked if a legislator's staff would be under the same legal
constraints as those named categories in the legislation.
MS. NOBREGA referred to page 2, line 16, which prohibits the
disclosure of this confidential and privileged information to
anyone not authorized to receive it [as specified in Section 1].
3:15:43 PM
TAMMY SANDOVAL, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of Children's
Services, Department of Health and Social Services, said that
the department wants to be responsive to the needs of foster
parents. However, AS 47.10.080(q) clearly defines and limits
the information to which foster parents are entitled. Per
statute, foster parents are entitled to the foster child's case
plan, medical, mental health, and educational information in
order to assist the foster parent in providing the proper care
and safety for that foster child and his/her family. That same
statute also requires foster parents to maintain the
confidentiality of records regarding a child placed in their
home, except when the disclosure of the records is necessary to
obtain medical or educational services. Ms. Sandoval informed
the committee that many avenues already exist to allow the input
of foster parents when making decisions for the foster child.
In fact, foster parents are part of the regular case review
system, which allows them to express any concerns about the plan
or the services being provided. Furthermore, foster parents are
allowed to attend court hearings and provide testimony to the
judge. Ms. Sandoval highlighted that foster parents are welcome
to contact the foster child's social worker, the social worker's
supervisor, a staff manager, the OCS manager, as well as the
central office. Moreover, foster parents have access to the
formal process, which is now part of HB 53.
MS. SANDOVAL related that OCS's experience is that foster
parents don't typically resort to contacting legislators about
services to children per se, but rather at times the attachment
between the foster parents and the child cause the foster parent
to be opposed to the foster child being reunited with his/her
biological family or other permanency plan. Ms. Sandoval
clarified, "We are not suggesting that foster parents should not
have the right to call their elected officials with complaints
and/or concerns about their interactions with us, the goal is to
support them in the best of their ability." She expressed the
desire of OCS to respond quickly and resolve those issues it
can, including issues about the application process, foster care
licensure, training, monthly payments or special funding
requests, and communication and support from the social worker.
Ms. Sandoval specified that the department has a neutral
position on HB 14, although it questions its necessity and
impact to existing law.
3:19:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed the desire to be sure that there
is not a difference of opinion with regard to the answer to his
previous question.
MS. SANDOVAL, in response to Representative Seaton, related her
understanding that a legislator's staff will now be included in
the group of individuals who can receive the confidential and
privileged information. She noted that she had wondered why a
legislator's staff was pointed out as different than "an
employee of these persons", which is the language used on page
1, line 12. With regard to page 2, line 16, Ms. Sandoval opined
that criminal statutes apply.
CHAIR WILSON surmised then that [a legislator's staff] was
already included.
MS. SANDOVAL said that she believes that the language "an
employee of these persons" does already include [a legislator's
staff].
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to the proper procedures for
the disposal of confidential and privileged information.
MS. SANDOVAL said that she didn't know what guidelines direct
the legislature with regard to such records.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed the need for there to be
guidelines for legislators regarding the disposal of
confidential and privileged information. She also expressed the
need for access to a shredder.
3:23:27 PM
MS. SANDOVAL, in response to Representative Seaton, confirmed
that the department is in favor of Representative Rokeberg's
suggestion to remove the references to "the child's family".
3:24:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related that she recently attended the
Child Welfare League's meeting on performance measures. Under
discussion at that meeting was the recognition of the imbalance
of power, mainly in relation to natural parents. However,
Representative Cissna opined that it also applies to foster
parents. She related her belief that having legislators enter
the picture seems to equalize the situation a bit.
3:26:08 PM
MS. SANDOVAL said that's why foster parents are invited to come
to court hearings in which the judge serves as the neutral
party. She noted that there are numerous ways in which foster
parents can be heard by a neutral party.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, to delete the language "for a child's family"
throughout the legislation, including on page 1, line 1. There
being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
MS. NOBREGA clarified that there are locations in the
legislation where references to the "child's family" should
remain. She suggested only deleting the references to the
"child's family" that were inserted in statute by HB 14.
3:28:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to rescind the committee's action in
adopting Conceptual Amendment 1. There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 was rescinded.
3:29:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON then moved that the committee adopt New
Conceptual Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "or a child's family"
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "or a child's family"
There being no objection, New Conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that HB 14 is good legislation
because foster parents are asked to parent a foster child as
they would their own. At the same time, the hands of the foster
parents are tied in that they don't always have access to the
information that they need. Therefore, she expressed the need
to have all the avenues which the foster parent has in
advocating for the foster child open.
3:30:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING moved to report HB 14, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 14(HES) was
reported from the House Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee.
HB 214-ANATOMICAL GIFTS
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 214, "An Act relating to anatomical gifts and the
anatomical gift donor registry program."
3:31:47 PM
VANESSA TONDINI, Staff to Representative McGuire, Alaska State
Legislature, reminded the committee that last year the
legislature passed the anatomical gifts registry bill, which
created an official organ donor registry program at the
Department of Motor Vehicles. Through the program, she related,
an organ donor's wishes are kept on record in a central database
and are transferred to Life Alaska Donor Services, which is the
state's organ and tissue donor program. She pointed out that
Life Alaska matches the donor's gift to a potential recipient.
She added that HB 214 makes simple, technical changes to
existing law, furthers the intent of the original legislation,
and continues to move the donor registry forward in the state.
Furthermore, HB 214 works to make the donor registry more
inclusive and offers expanded definitions that clarify the
agencies responsible for donation within the state. She
explained that it allows for increased notification for the
people who are trained to do the actual recovery procedures,
allows for greater donation potential, and clears up some
inconsistencies between federal regulation and state law.
CHAIR WILSON inquired as to the differences between federal and
state laws.
MS. TONDINI stated that the bill that was submitted last year
was done so with the intent that the donor registry be operated
from within the state and not controlled by an out-of-state
agency and one of the changes is to allow access to both in-
state and out-of-state procurement organizations. She explained
that procurement organization is in AS "13.52.90" and AS
13.52.390 is defined as the organization designated by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. She said that the
definition of "technician" is being changed, as it is currently
too restrictive [in HB 214] and not in line with the laws of
other states. She explained that the FDA defines a technician
under "21CFR12.71.170" by requiring establishments to employ
sufficient personnel with the necessary education, experience,
and training to insure competent performance. She noted that AS
13.52.200(e) only addresses notification to the hospital and HB
214 will expand notification by allowing for law enforcement
officers to contact a procurement organization directly.
3:37:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE asked Bruce Zalneraitus to elaborate on a
section of HB 214 where 42CFR482.45 was contradicted regarding
the notification requirements.
BRUCE ZALNERAITUS, Executive Director, Life Alaska, said that
there is a national requirement to notify the procurement
organization when there has been a death, including imminent
deaths for the purpose of potential organ donation from a body
with a beating heart. He explained that the "determination of
suitability" is not the responsibility of the hospital and that
the procurement organization would make necessary
determinations.
3:39:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that organ
procurement organizations are federally defined and thus the
term "organ" is being deleted in order to take the [state's
program] out of the federal organ procurement organization.
MR. ZALNERAITUS said that in this case it broadens the
definition to include, an organization like Life Alaska, with an
organ procurement organization that is based out of state.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that Life Alaska is a
procurement organization. She inquired as to why Alaska needs
its own procurement organization when there are functioning
regional [procurement] organizations around the country.
3:40:48 PM
MR. ZALNERAITUS explained that, in Alaska, most donation is
tissue donation. He related, "by having such an exclusion, to
an organization that does not represent tissue donation out of
state, we feel that would be misrepresenting all donation in
Alaska of which organ and tissue are inclusive."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that the benefit to Alaska is that
the tissue donation registry is in Alaska.
MR. ZALNERAITUS clarified that it would be a donation registry,
it is not distinct between organ and tissue.
3:41:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE said that last year she worked hard with
the Division of Motor Vehicles to get an organ and tissue
donation registry in Alaska. As the bill that had been created
to create this registry moved through the legislative process,
the people controlling the regional organ donation programs
offered amendments at the last minute, she related. She
mentioned Life Center Northwest, a regional procurement
organization, which demanded that Alaska's organ and tissue
donation registry would have to go through it for approval. She
explained that Life Center Northwest continued to request
changes as the development of the registry occurred. She said:
Right now, we are working with Senator Murkowski and
Senator Stevens to actually get a separate category
for Alaska, but for right now, what this bill does is
it allows us to continue on in the efforts that we've
done. We've increased our organ and tissue donation
rates, up in the 80th percentile, we've had some
phenomenal work going forward and I don't want that
work to be threatened .... The intent all along was
that Life Alaska, our only organ and tissue donation
center, would be the group that would go ahead and
make the decisions and help work with our Division of
Motor Vehicles .... Again, Alaskans' expectation was
that you use the resources of our Division of Motor
Vehicles to work toward an Alaskan registry that
benefits Alaskans and is controlled and maintained
here, not somebody in Seattle, Washington, and so it
is an issue that hits very close to home.
3:45:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that a team comes up from
Washington to harvest organs in Alaska. Furthermore, organ
transplants are not performed in Alaska. Since people in Alaska
are not able to have organ transplants in Alaska, it makes sense
to have the registry located where services occur, she opined.
3:46:18 PM
MR. ZALNERAITUS clarified that the services are provided in both
places. Furthermore, many tissue transplants occur in Alaska.
3:46:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the information on [Alaska's]
organ donation registry is available to the organ procurement
organization.
MR. ZALNERAITUS replied yes, adding that [the organ procurement
organization] has full access to the registry to look up names
of potential donors.
3:47:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed concern with regard to the
notion of the cost being borne by Alaskan taxpayers, and then
inquired as to what kinds of taxes Alaskan taxpayers would be
required to pay [related to this legislation].
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE reminded that the state of Alaska does
not have a personal income tax, but that all of the businesses
in Alaska pay an income tax.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA interjected that the businesses wouldn't
be paying the taxes on this.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE clarified, "We are allowing a division
of our government that we fund out of our general fund, which is
in part a product of those taxes that Alaskans that own
businesses, that own oil companies, that own small businesses,
that pay into licensure and so on."
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA opined that it's really dangerous to talk
about "Alaskan taxpayers" that way.
3:48:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE said:
Anytime we make a commitment to utilize government
entities, government resources, it is my humble
opinion ... that when we commit to utilizing our
resources in this state, to help put together
registries, to help whatever the project is, that we
are committing Alaskan resources to do that. The
Division of Motor Vehicles is funded in large part ...
by the fees that we pay to get our driver's license
.... My point is that when I put this bill through
... I made the pitch that I thought the overall
benefit to Alaska and to Alaskans that could receive
and donate organ and tissue was a good thing .... My
intent in the bill was never that the registry would
be housed outside of Alaska in Alaskan's control ....
This legislation, right now, is technical in that it
corrects parts of the bill that I meant to be there
and in some cases didn't mean to be there .... I was
trying to articulate the places where I feel I failed
to carry out my intent.
3:51:40 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked Mr. Zalneraitus to inform the committee
regarding the importance of an Alaska-based registry.
3:51:52 PM
MR. ZALNERAITUS said that there are both organ and tissue
donations in Alaska, and Life Alaska's registry was designed for
Alaskans to be represented within the state and had about 65,000
people on it. The intent of adopting the Alaska donor registry
with the Division of Motor Vehicles was that registering would
be easier, he related. He pointed out that the intent was also
that the registry remain in Alaska and that the control and the
operation of the registry stay within the state in order to take
advantage of future opportunities including using the permanent
fund for donor registration.
CHAIR WILSON pointed out that in Alaska, accidents often happen
in remote locations and thus it would be an extra expense for
the [registry] in Seattle to come to Alaska versus Life Alaska
doing it, which she estimated it could the majority of the time.
3:53:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER applauded the efforts of encouraging more
people to donate organs and tissue. However, she said she was
puzzled by the cost involved with an Alaskan registry as the
donated items are not only used in Alaska, but are available to
the entire region. Similarly, Alaskans can receive transplants
from other regions as well. She expressed concern with regard
to the expense of establishing a registry when one already
exists. Representative Gardner agreed that people could be
encouraged to register through the DMV or the permanent fund
application form, but they could register with the Western
states' registry for no additional cost.
MR. ZALNERAITUS stated that [Life Alaska] would bear that cost
as they would be responsible to maintain the other registry.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to where the funding comes
from to do registry maintenance.
MR. ZALNERAITUS said that Life Alaska funds support the
maintenance of the registry. In further response to
Representative Gardner, Mr. Zalneraitus explained that Life
Alaska would be responsible for the Alaskan portion of the
registry in Alaska because Life Alaska would benefit from
knowing who is on the registry. Therefore, there is a fee for
Life Alaska to access the registry. He said:
We are operating in Alaska, and if you're an Alaskan
and let's say an example, that registry is located out
of state, that registry costs money to build and to
maintain and to continue to operate ... those [costs]
are borne by the users of the registry.
We are authorized to access the registry, not the
public ... for the purpose of determining who's a
donor ... and part of the actual statute is that "it
shall only be used for the purpose of determining
whether somebody is a donor."
3:56:48 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked if other states pay to access the Seattle
area [registry].
MR. ZALNERAITUS stated that he does not know what other states
pay.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER posed a situation in which her organs
were available for harvesting and the hospital contacted the
organ procurement organization. In such a case, would that cost
Life Alaska anything, she asked.
MR. ZALNERAITUS said that the costs involved in this are a
result of accessing and maintaining the registry. He explained
that Life Alaska is bearing the cost of the registry, as of now.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to why a second registry is
necessary when Alaska can't harvest or transplant organs here.
CHAIR WILSON clarified that very little of the harvesting that
is done in Alaska is organs, it is mostly tissue.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that this is really
targeting the harvesting of tissue.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE said:
Life Alaska, through their donations, does pay ....
We have initiated in this state what's called "donated
dollar" ... when you go to sign up to hopefully become
an organ and tissue donor in Alaska ... the DMV asks
you, "would you like to donate a dollar to Life Alaska
to help support organ and tissue donation efforts?"
... it's mainly getting the word out ....
4:00:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE opined that she didn't intend to create
more work for law enforcement by requiring them to send the
notification, which resulted in a fiscal note for postage,
related supplies, etcetera. Therefore, she moved that the
committee adopt Amendment 1, which would remove that
notification requirement and thereby eliminate a fiscal note
from HB 214. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE moved to adopt [Conceptual] Amendment 2,
as follows:
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "and a procurement organization"
There being no objection, [Conceptual] Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report HB 214, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the attached
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 214(HES) was
reported from the House Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee.
HB 13-SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND REIMBURSEMENT
4:03:43 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 13, "An Act relating to reimbursement of
municipal bonds for school construction; and providing for an
effective date."
4:04:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, stated
that HB 13 will allow for the construction of three elementary
schools and a high school, assuming the citizens of the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley (Mat-Su) are willing to bond 30 percent
of the costs. He said:
I only want to leave you with one single point ...
there are 600 kids that will show up this year,
standing in the rain ... with no school to go to ...
next year, those 600 and 600 more and the following
year ... even more, because of the growth in the [Mat-
Su] Valley, for which no one has indicated will even
level off, much less reverse, the growth is
exponential and substantial .... I am asking for you
to allow us to put up 30 percent of the money and have
the state put up 70 percent of the money and that is
exactly the state's wish and obligation, to
essentially allow for schools to be built in the areas
where they are needed. I cannot begin to tell you how
strong the need is, and so I ask you to consider this
issue ....
4:06:32 PM
KIM FLOYD, Public Information Specialist, Mat-Su Borough School
District, said that she cannot reiterate strongly enough how
much schools are needed [in the Mat-Su District]. She expressed
her desire for HB 13 to move to the Finance Committee.
4:07:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to when the Mat-Su community
will vote on the issue of bonding and if HB 13 passed, when
construction would be completed on the first of the schools.
MS. FLOYD said that tomorrow evening, the school board will
consider a bond package to forward to the assembly with the hope
that there could be a vote on October 4, [2005]. She explained
that the current timeline in the Mat-Su borough allows for a
school to open approximately three years after it is voted on by
the public, however, the Mat-Su Borough School District is going
to try and fast-track that process. She emphasized that the
Mat-Su School District is at a crisis point.
4:08:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON stated that he is ready to move HB 13
out of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
4:09:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that she would like to present an
amendment on behalf of Representative Kapsner. The amendment
[Amendment 1], labeled 24-LS0062\F.2, Mischel, 3/31/05, read as
follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to the school construction grant
fund;"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 14.11.008(a) is amended to read:
(a) In order to receive a grant under this
chapter or an appropriation under AS 37.05.560, a
district must
(1) be
(A) a rural educational attendance area;
(B) a municipal school district and, as of
June 30 of the previous fiscal year, have a population
of less than 1,000; or
(C) a municipal school district that
operates schools on a military reservation; and
(2) provide a percentage share of the
project cost, as determined under (b) or (c) of this
section; a [. A] district shall provide the required
participating share within three years after the date
that the appropriation bill funding the grant is
passed by the legislature.
* Sec. 2. AS 14.11.008(a) is repealed and
reenacted to read:
(a) In order to receive a grant under this
chapter or an appropriation under AS 37.05.560, a
district must provide a percentage share of the
project cost, as determined under (b) or (c) of this
section. A district shall provide the required
participating share within three years after the date
that the appropriation bill funding the grant is
passed by the legislature.
* Sec. 3. AS 14.11.008 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(g) Grant funds provided to a municipal school
district under (a)(1)(C) of this section may only be
used for the costs of school construction or major
maintenance for a school located on a military
reservation.
* Sec. 4. AS 14.11.011(a) is amended to read:
(a) A municipality that is a school district or
a regional educational attendance area eligible under
AS 14.11.008(a) may submit a request to the department
for a grant under this chapter.
* Sec. 5. AS 14.11.011(a) is repealed and
reenacted to read:
(a) A municipality that is a school district or
a regional educational attendance area may submit a
request to the department for a grant under this
chapter."
Page 5, lines 13 - 16:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 7. AS 14.11.008(g) is repealed.
* Sec. 8. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
RETROACTIVITY. If, under sec. 9 of this Act,
secs. 1, 3, 4, and 6 of this Act take effect, they are
retroactive to January 1, 2005.
* Sec. 9. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONTINGENT EFFECT. Sections 1 - 7 of this Act
take effect only if, at the first regular session or
at a special session, the Twenty-Fourth Alaska
Legislature passes a bill appropriating an amount
equal to or more than $100,000,000 to the school
construction grant fund under AS 14.11.008 -
14.11.011, as amended by secs. 1, 3, and 4 of this
Act, and that bill becomes law not later than October
1, 2005.
* Sec. 10. If, under section 9 of this Act, secs.
2, 5, and 7 of this Act take effect, they take effect
July 1, 2006.
* Sec. 11. Except as provided in sec. 10 of this
Act, this Act takes effect immediately under
AS 01.10.070(c)."
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said that Representative Kapsner's
committee aide was available to provide necessary information.
She related that Representative Gatto had received an opinion
from the Legislative Legal Services on the Kasayulie v. State of
Alaska case, which said that, "the most conservative approach to
avoid a Kasayulie type of challenge with the extension in HB 13
would be to either fund concurrently some of the [regional
education attendance areas (REAA)] projects in an appropriate
bill or to find another REAA funding source to meet some of
identified need. This assumes, however, that necessary
appropriations and voter approvals are obtained to implement HB
13." Representative Cissna interpreted this to say that the
state could prevent the embarrassing situation of having the
courts tell it that the state is not meeting important
responsibilities.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that if this amendment will allow the
accomplishment of what the court has mandated, then he has no
objection to allowing the single bill [HB 13] to take care of
both issues.
4:12:29 PM
PAT JACKSON, Staff to Representative Mary Kapsner, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that legal services helped craft language
that would link bonded school indebtedness and the list for
schools that are not able to bond. Instead of using a
conceptual amendment, she related, the drafter at Legislative
Legal Services advocated for using a dollar figure because of
the issue of time. Therefore, the aforementioned amendment
suggests $100 million. She commented that this is an effort to
address some of the concerns that the Kasayulie case brought out
in terms of the needs of rural schools.
CHAIR WILSON recalled that when Eddy Jeans, Department of Health
and Social Services, testified on the amount, he didn't know
because there was no way of knowing how many schools would apply
for that, so it is open-ended.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously]. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING moved that the committee rescind its
action in adopting Amendment 1. There being no objection,
Amendment 1 was rescinded.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA moved to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING objected for the purpose of discussion.
He asked Representative Gatto what affect this [amendment] could
potentially have on the Mat-Su's ability to be able to secure
the bond debt reimbursement monies.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that the Mat-Su community is
definitely willing to put up the 30 percent for the bond debt
reimbursement. He pointed out that Kim Floyd's testimony
reflected this, and that according to a recent survey in the
Mat-Su area, there is overwhelming support. He continued:
With regards to the other issue of the state coming up
with enough money for their share, this amendment
addresses $100 million dollar limit; ... we're capped
at $100 million. If more people apply, that would be
up to the state, subject to the confines of the
amendment to say, "We only have $100 million, we can
give it to the first, we can do it proportionally."
But it would be a decision that would simply limit the
amount of money to the $100 million. ... A member
from the other body has proposed spending permanent
fund earnings for school construction. That, also,
could enter into the equation that we're considering
here ... some of this, for school debt reimbursement,
may not even be necessary. ... The $100 million cap
may not even be reached with regard to the urban
schools, which would conceivably keep the money
available to go further down that list of the required
schools.
4:19:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING inquired as to enrollment increases in
rural Alaska.
MS. JACKSON said that she cannot answer that question directly,
but that in Representative Kapsner's district there are
increasing numbers of students and overcrowding issues.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE said that she likes the [bond debt
reimbursement program] because it requires local communities to
make a local contribution. She inquired as to what amount might
be appropriate to ask of rural schools to contribute [for the
construction of new schools].
MS. JACKSON said that presently there are participating shares
listed on the school construction grants and in school
construction only. The current list has approximately $527
[million] in requests and the state's share is approximately
$400 million. She added that she is aware of one district that
may make a contribution of land.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE said that any contribution that shows
that the people in a community are supportive of a large project
[like the construction of a school] is worthwhile and
appreciated. She added that she welcomes leadership from
Representative Kapsner in addressing rural communities and their
needs in relation to HB 13.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified:
One thing that we have to remember is that there has
been a movement to create boroughs so that they would
donate. ... In two of the last three boroughs that
were formed, it actually cost the state money because
... the federal government gives to the REAAs and as
soon as it's a borough, ... there's that ... 23
percent max that can be made from that local
[government]. So we are getting more funds in many of
these areas that go to the school from the federal
pass through that is then stopped if it is a borough.
And then we actually have to take money out of the
existing schools and shift it over to fund those. So,
it's not as if no money is going from those areas; it
may not come from a house assessment, but there is
money matching and that is one of the big factors that
has created this problem with forming boroughs. ...
The boroughs, depending on which boroughs you want to
form for school funding, can actually cost our schools
money because of ... the federal cap that's been
imposed.
CHAIR WILSON offered that the federal government supplies extra
funding for the rural schools, so that the state does not have
to pay the portion that the [rural school] cannot supply.
4:26:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that HB 13 provides an
opportunity to work with the Bush Caucus and address the needs
of rural schools. She emphasized that the Mat-Su area is in
need [of new schools] but that the Bush areas, in their own way,
are facing challenges with increased enrollment, and population
growth.
4:28:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that Amendment 1 offers a $100
million cap on the rural school construction grant fund. He
said:
That would match up with the [approximately] $200
million authorized as bonds because the bonding
estimated for Anchorage and Kenai alone ... would be
around $200 million, minimum. ... This [Amendment 1]
gives 18 months of unlimited new debt reimbursement.
So it could be much more than [$200 million].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to Amendment 1 and asked if the
$100,000,000 on page 2, line 5 is a total cap, or if it would be
a rural school grant with unlimited bonding match ability.
CHAIR WILSON said that this meeting will be recessed until there
can be further clarification on the issues that Representative
Seaton brought forth.
4:31:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO read a statement from Jean Mischel,
Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, as follows:
I have advised you that a discussion of any effect can
only be speculative since much of the impact of this
bill on the rural/urban funding equity issue raised in
the case, depends on 1. Annual appropriations
approved by the legislature for school facilities,
both for bond debt reimbursement for municipal school
districts and for capital improvement projects for
REAA's and municipal school districts and 2. Voter
approval of bond indebtedness.
CHAIR WILSON stated that HB 13 would be held over. [The motion
to adopt Amendment 1 and the objection by Representative Kohring
was left pending.]
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
^Professional Teaching Practices Commission
4:32:06 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the final order of business would be
the appointment of Bonnie C. Gaborik to the Professional
Teaching Practices Commission. Upon determining that Ms.
Gaborik was not available to speak with the committee,
consideration of her appointment was held over.
4:32:44 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee meeting was recessed to the call of the chair at
4:33:28 PM. [This meeting reconvened on April 7, 2005.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|