Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/16/1996 08:07 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 16, 1996
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 136
"An Act mandating the sale of the Alaska Railroad; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 545
"An Act relating to the cost-of-living differential for certain
public employees residing in the state and the criteria for
determining eligibility for the differential; and providing for an
effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 545(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 61
Opposing the proposed changes in the functions of the federal
Office of Veterans Affairs in Anchorage.
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 546
"An Act providing for and relating to the issuance of general
obligation bonds in the amount of $600,211,000 for the purpose of
paying the cost of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, and
equipping public schools and of repair and major maintenance of
public school and University of Alaska facilities; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the duration of a regular session.
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 490
"An Act relating to grants and other financial assistance
authorized or made by the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation
for the BIDCO assistance program."
- WAIVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 136
SHORT TITLE: MANDATE SALE OF ALASKA RAILROAD
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/30/95 174 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/30/95 174 (H) TRA, STA, FIN
04/03/96 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/03/96 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/09/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/10/96 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/11/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/12/96 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/12/96 3691 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 1DP 5NR 1AM
04/12/96 3692 (H) DP: G.DAVIS
04/12/96 3692 (H) NR: WILLIAMS, SANDERS, LONG, JAMES
04/12/96 3692 (H) NR: MASEK
04/12/96 3692 (H) AM: BRICE
04/12/96 3692 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
04/12/96 3692 (H) FISCAL NOTE (LAW)
04/12/96 3692 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (GOV, DOT)
04/12/96 3692 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
04/13/96 (H) FIN AT 1:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/16/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 545
SHORT TITLE: PUB. EMPLOYEE COST OF LIVING DIFFERENTIAL
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/22/96 3269 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/22/96 3269 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/22/96 3269 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM, REV, DOT)
03/22/96 3269 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/04/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/09/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/09/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/11/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/13/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/13/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/16/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 61
SHORT TITLE: ANCHORAGE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/96 3029 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/96 3029 (H) MLV, STATE AFFAIRS
03/22/96 (H) MLV AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/22/96 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/25/96 3308 (H) MLV RPT 4DP
03/25/96 3309 (H) DP: FOSTER, WILLIS, KOTT, IVAN
03/25/96 3309 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.MLV/GOV)
04/04/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/16/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 546
SHORT TITLE: G.O. BONDS: SCHOOLS & UNIV.
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/22/96 3270 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/22/96 3270 (H) STA, HES, FINANCE
03/26/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/26/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/09/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/09/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/11/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/16/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 34
SHORT TITLE: LIMIT LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO 90 DAYS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SANDERS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/95 641 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/95 641 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/28/96 (H) STA AT 8:15 AM CAPITOL 102
03/28/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/30/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/09/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/09/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/12/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 136.
JEFF COOK, Vice President
MAPCO Alaska Petroleum Inc.
1076 Ocean Dock Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-4100
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 136.
DAVID THOMPSON, Conductor
Alaska Railroad Corporation
327 Ship Creek Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 265-2459
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 136.
PATRICK GULLUFSEN, Assistant District Attorney
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 545.
JULIE KNUTSON
HC 60 P.O. Box 229K
Copper Center, Alaska 99573
Telephone: (907) 822-3717
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 546.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4945
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 34.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-53, SIDE A
Number 0015
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:07 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Willis, Ivan, Porter, Ogan and James. Members
absent were Representatives Robinson and Green.
The record reflected the arrival of Representatives Robinson and
Green at 8:09 a.m.
HB 136 - MANDATE SALE OF ALASKA RAILROAD
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was CSHB 136(TRA) (9-LS0438/G).
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Representative Terry Martin,
sponsor of HB 136, to present the bill to the committee members.
Number 0149
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN explained his intention to sponsor HB
136 was to determine what the state had. The railroad was now a
hot subject, it had received a few offers to buy it. Therefore,
everyone was wondering what should be done with it. He explained,
according to an audit, there were hundreds of thousands of acres
involved. He cited Girdwood, Whittier, Seward, half of downtown
Fairbanks and Anchorage as areas where there was land involved.
The state had completed its commitment to the federal government to
keep it running for 10 years. He agreed the state did a fabulous
job allowing it to run independently. However, the reason it was
able to run on its own was because of the land. The land had been
subsidizing it to keep it running. He reiterated, "let's see what
we have." He suggested starting by transferring the land from the
federal government to the state government. He did not care who
received the land for the state, but an orderly transfer was
necessary. He said the railroad corporation had already started
transferring some select property but there was no way to know for
sure. He reiterated the land and the railroad belonged to the
state. It was time to see what the state had, and outline an
orderly process in the event the state wanted to sell the land.
Number 0357
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked Representative Martin what this
bill provided to the state?
Number 0365
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied right now it was open. The bill
stated it would complete the commitment to sell the railroad as
promised in 1982. He explained, historically, many felt the state
would get stuck with "a goose that wouldn't fly." The federal
government was willing to buy it for $100 million. The state did
not want to buy it for that much money, however. The offer was
followed by debate. Finally, the state bought it for $20 million.
He reiterated it was time again to look at what the state had.
Number 0470
CHAIR JAMES explained HB 136 was waived from the House State
Affairs Committee last week. However, there was impetus in both
the House and the Senate to move forward with a mandatory sale of
the railroad. She informed the committee members there was a
committee substitute now being drafted of which would be presented
later. There would not be any action taken on the bill today.
Number 0578
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN explained his staff was working close with
the Senate so they knew better than anybody the status of the bills
in both chambers.
Number 0635
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN further said he hoped that the two major
programs could be pushed through the House. He reiterated it was
important to determine what the state had. The House Budget and
Audit Committee had the capability to determine what the state had
so that the state could sell what it wanted.
Number 0692
CHAIR JAMES said she understood the concerns of Representative
Martin. She was concerned, however, about returning the land back
to the state. She was more interested in having the land
developed. Furthermore, she was also more interested in a bigger
railroad, not a smaller railroad. Therefore, land acquisitions
were necessary. It appeared that some of the land Representative
Martin mentioned would have good trading stock value. Therefore,
selling the land was premature.
Number 0784
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN replied Senator Bennett from Fairbanks was
the last person to study the value of the land surrounding the
railroad. He looked at expanding the railroad east from Fairbanks
to Dawson. It was time to resurrect those reports to see what the
state had.
Number 0827
CHAIR JAMES replied in 1993 legislation was passed that authorized
$10,000 to identify the cost of securing private interest for the
land. She suggested checking the status of that money.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said the state could save money by
researching what had been done before. The state was almost at the
point of being beyond the point of research, action was the next
step.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Jeff Cook.
Number 0887
JEFF COOK, Vice President, MAPCO Alaska Petroleum Inc., explained
his company was the largest customer of the Alaska Railroad
Corporation. He cited the company leased over 350 rail anchor cars
to move oil. In 1995 the company paid more than $23 million to the
Alaska Railroad Corporation. MAPCO was very concerned about the
sale of the railroad in view of the long-term contracts of which
about 12 years remain. MAPCO had an excellent relationship and
strategic alliance with it. Furthermore, MAPCO was very happy with
the service it had received. MAPCO felt the bill was moving too
fast. He suggested an interim committee or task force to look at
the issue further and to include the major customers, such as
MAPCO, as a participant.
Number 1051
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Cook, if a piece of legislation
included the procedure that he just described, would he support
moving the bill forward?
Number 1063
MR. COOK replied "yes." He would support a bill that included the
approach he indicated.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness in Juneau, David Thompson.
Number 1083
DAVID THOMPSON, Conductor, Alaska Railroad Corporation, said he was
here today representing conductors and engineers of the Alaska
Railroad Corporation. They were concerned because the bill did not
address how the railroad would operate in the future. Furthermore,
when the railroad went from federal ownership to state ownership,
many employees remained in the federal retirement system. He
suggested looking into that issue further before another transfer
of owners. He said this would affect 186 employees. He reiterated
there were many issues that had not been addressed in the bill. It
took four years for the first transfer, therefore, more time was
needed to look at the issues further.
Number 1169
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked Mr. Thompson, if his group had
also considered a task force approach, and if so, who would he
recommend be a part of that task force?
Number 1190
MR. THOMPSON replied they had not discussed the formation of a task
force. He suggested including union representation as part of the
task force.
Number 1218
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what was the time schedule for the joint
task force?
CHAIR JAMES responded the issues of how big, the members, the time
frame, and the goals still needed to be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if it would happen before the end of
session.
CHAIR JAMES replied the committee substitute that addressed this
would be here by Thursday, April 18, 1996. Furthermore, she was
opposed to any fast track sale of the Alaska Railroad Corporation.
She did not want to give away state assets. As a legislator she
was responsible to maximize whatever the state had, and to protect
the employees of the railroad.
HB 545 - PUB. EMPLOYEE COST OF LIVING DIFFERENTIAL
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was CSHB 545(STA) (9-GH2067/F).
CHAIR JAMES called on Patrick Gullufsen, Department of Law, to
present the committee substitute.
Number 1345
PATRICK GULLUFSEN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, said the committee
substitute addressed the concerns of the definition of state
residency. The definition was taken directly from the permanent
fund dividend (PFD) statute. The authority was also given to the
Commissioner of the Department of Administration to implement and
clarify the criteria for the purposes of the cost-of-living
differential (COLD) through regulations. Furthermore, in
subsection (c), page 2, it clarified that the criteria were not
subject to negotiation. The allowable absences were also clarified
that they were temporary absences in comparison to the five year
absence for the PFD, for example. He referred the committee
members to Section 2, subsection (b), and explained it was an
attempt to resolve the dispute if a person was only in the state
for purposes of the ferry that time was not counted towards
residency.
Number 1531
CHAIR JAMES explained her concerns in the beginning were the issues
surrounding a state resident. She wondered about the seasonal
workers on the ferry. She did not consider them a state resident
because they did not live in Alaska during the off-period.
However, she did believe they were entitled to the COLD. She
recognized that was hard to address in a statute, however. She
further wondered about some of the allowable absences cited in the
bill. She asked Mr. Gullufsen if service in Congress was
reasonable? She could not imagine a state employee serving time in
Congress for any reason.
Number 1699
MR. GULLUFSEN replied it would be an unusual circumstance. The
provision was taken directly from the PFD definition. It was
possible that a marine highway system employee would run for
Congress and get elected.
CHAIR JAMES replied, in that case, he could not continue to be a
state employee.
MR. GULLUFSEN said the question to consider was should he lose his
residency for the period of time he was in Washington D.C. The
provision would allow him to maintain his residency status to
receive the COLD upon his return. He reiterated it would be an
unusual circumstance.
Number 1749
CHAIR JAMES wondered how long a person had to be in Alaska before
he received the COLD. She also wondered, if a person that just
moved to Alaska with the intention to stay, would receive the COLD.
Number 1766
MR. GULLUFSEN replied, "most likely he would." He said the issue
needed to be looked at harder, however. He said other criteria
needed to be looked at further for additional support, such as,
home ownership. If the person still owned a home in Seattle,
Washington, for example, that was an indication that he did not
intend to remain in Alaska.
Number 1824
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Gullufsen if service in the Peace Corps was
needed?
Number 1827
MR. GULLUFSEN replied that was part of the PFD definitions. He
said it would be an unusual circumstance. It would be unfortunate
to exclude eligibility for the COLD upon return from the Peace
Corps, however.
Number 1843
CHAIR JAMES stated a COLD was intended to cover the extra cost
incurred to live in Alaska. This could be simply stated. It was
difficult for her to understand that all of these provisions were
needed. She even believed a seasonal employee should receive the
COLD while he was living in Alaska. She felt that the PFD was a
benefit to Alaskans, and the COLD was intended to help offset the
cost of living in Alaska. It was a comparison of apples and
oranges.
Number 1910
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he did not consider a person working
seasonally in Alaska then returning to Washington, for example, an
Alaskan resident. That was not the purpose of the COLD.
Number 1924
CHAIR JAMES replied the legislators were not Juneau residents when
here for session in Juneau. However, a per diem was paid because
it cost money to be here. She understood that was a different
issue, but that was what she envisioned the COLD would be used for.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied when he left Juneau he did not go to
Seattle, for example.
CHAIR JAMES said she understood the response of Representative
Porter. She wondered about a married couple whereby one worked
seasonally in Alaska and the rest of the family remained in
Seattle, for example. It should be the entire family. She said
she would let the Department of Administration hammer the details
out. She was not convinced the bill would give the department all
the necessary tools, however.
Number 1964
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if the word "temporarily" would
create a problem for interpretation in the future.
Number 1986
MR. GULLUFSEN replied he did not think the word "temporarily" would
create a problem. He felt the word actually helped the issue.
Regulations would be needed to address the main and specific
problems that were raised.
Number 2010
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he was not questioning a temporary
absence. He was concerned that the PFD criteria would cause a
problem for the marine highway system.
Number 2046
MR. GULLUFSEN replied, "time will tell." It was a good point.
Number 2051
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained a piece of legislation in the
Senate addressed eliminating all allowable absences from the PFD
program. She did not know how that would impact the COLD if both
bodies decided to accept the legislation. She asked Mr. Gullufsen
how he would draft the bill if there was not a permanent fund
program?
Number 2088
MR. GULLUFSEN replied he did not know. He thought the
Administration would look at not allowing any absences. However,
that would present legal and fairness issues. The Administration
would probably look at allowing absences but not opening the door
too wide. It was nice to have the guidance from the PFD program.
Number 2121
CHAIR JAMES stated if CSHB 545(STA) (9-GH2067/F) was passed the
criteria would be put into statute. Therefore, if the PFD criteria
were changed, it would not affect this bill. She reiterated the
criteria for the PFD and the COLD were different because the PFD
was based on presence in Alaska rather than residency. She did not
feel that state residency was the way to pursue this issue.
However, the bill was important because it would eliminate the
possibility of future arbitration.
Number 2200
CHAIR JAMES further said the bill was premature and had not been
thoroughly thought out.
Number 2219
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that CSHB 545(STA) (9-GH2067/F) be
adopted as a working document. Hearing no objection, it was so
adopted.
Number 2249
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to delete "E" and "G" on page 2.
Representative Robinson objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, if someone was to join the Peace Corps
or get elected to Congress, he severed the ties with the marine
highway system.
Number 2291
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said if the system wanted to adopt the PFD
criteria then it should accept all of the criteria.
Number 2302
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied the committee substitute already
tailored the criteria. The PFD was for on-going activity as a
resident with certain allowable absences on a long-term basis. The
COLD was for a very specific benefit for a small group of state
employees. The difference was obvious to him.
Number 2324
CHAIR JAMES said the difference between the two for her was the
word "temporarily." Regulations would be needed to define the word
"temporarily."
Number 2335
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON responded many of the provisions allowed an
absence for one to two years, such as the Peace Corps. She stated
she did not really know what was right either. She reiterated the
provisions were included for a reason for the PFD.
CHAIR JAMES stated a person could continue to be a state employee
according to some of the provisions. A person, however, that went
to the Peace Corps did not continue to be a state employee.
Number 2385
MR. GULLUFSEN said the word "temporarily" allowed the
Administration to look at a person in the Peace Corps and determine
if there was also a change in residency. The Administration would
prefer to see the provisions remain in the bill.
Number 2431
CHAIR JAMES said a state resident was one who was physically
present in the state with the intent to remain permanently. There
was nothing in the bill to indicate how long a person had to be in
Alaska to receive the COLD.
CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives James,
Ogan, Ivan, and Porter voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Robinson and Willis voted against the motion. The
motion passed.
TAPE 96-53, SIDE B
Number 0005
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that CSHB 545(STA) (9-GH2067/F) am move
from the committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, it was so moved from the House
State Affairs Committee.
CHAIR JAMES announced she would order the committee substitute and
distribute it to the committee members before moving it forward to
the next committee of referral - the House Judiciary Committee.
HJR 61 - ANCHORAGE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HJR 61.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Ed Willis to present the
resolution to the committee members.
Number 0056
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS explained the thrust of HJR 61 was brought to
his attention by several groups of Anchorage veterans. He intended
to start the resolution in the legislative process with the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs. However, a
special committee could not introduce legislation after a certain
date. He thanked Chair James for allowing the House State Affairs
Committee to sponsor the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS further explained the thrust of the
resolution was to support the Anchorage Veterans Affairs Regional
Office as a result of the efforts of the federal government to
downsize the office. The office now handled the compensation and
pension functions and the effect of moving those function to Reno,
Nevada and Phoenix, Arizona would be inefficient and not in the
best interest of Alaska's veterans. The resolution, if passed,
would support the efforts of Alaska's Congressional delegation. He
cited there were more than 73,000 veterans in Alaska, and the
office serviced more than one-half of those veterans. He
reiterated the thrust of the resolution was to give the Alaskan
Congressional delegation another tool to fight the downsizing
efforts of the federal government.
Number 0152
CHAIR JAMES said Alaska probably had the highest percentage of
veterans in its population compared to any other state. She agreed
the veterans deserved attention from the legislature. They were a
very important part of the population.
Number 0192
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN thanked Representative Willis for sponsoring
the resolution on behalf of the veterans in Alaska. He asked if
the resolution was referred to the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs?
CHAIR JAMES replied, "yes."
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN further thanked Representative Willis for his
care and support of this resolution.
Number 0219
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that HJR 61 move from the committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing
no objection, it was so moved from the House State Affairs
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS thanked the Chair and the committee members
for their support.
HB 546 - G.O. BONDS: SCHOOLS & UNIV.
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 546.
Number 0255
CHAIR JAMES explained HB 546 was scheduled today as a continuation
of the subcommittee to share with everyone the changes. The
subcommittee was addressing the equitability amongst the
distribution of the money. There was also discussion surrounding
general obligation bonds for locally owned school districts. It
was discovered it had been done a number of times in Alaska before.
The bonding capacity needed to be determined, however. It was
indicated it could be $100 million per year. Therefore, this would
need to be stretched out longer than five years. A handout titled,
"FY 97 School District Capital Funding Allocations by Legislative
District," was distributed to the committee members. She explained
the total allocation per school district was calculated by
multiplying the educational units generated by each district by
$59,000.
Number 0380
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if the thrust of HB 546 was to try to
balance the programs between the rural and urban areas.
Number 0389
CHAIR JAMES replied, "that's correct." That was what the
subcommittee was attempting to do.
Number 0417
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered why Mat-Su and Anchorage were
combined in the same district. He was referring to the handout
titled, "FY 97 School District Capital Funding Allocations by
Legislative District."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said Mat-Su had been asking that question for
years now.
Number 0429
CHAIR JAMES said it was possible to physically separate them on
paper. It did not change the numbers, however.
Number 0439
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied Mat-Su would not want any of its
money distributed to Anchorage and vice versa.
CHAIR JAMES reiterated a line could be drawn between the two on
paper. It did not affect the numbers, however.
Number 0480
CHAIR JAMES said she was concerned about Fairbanks and Denali
because they were combined in the same district as well. The money
allocated for Denali was not enough money for what was needed. The
bill did not meet the needs of her district. Therefore, she was
not that interested in the bill. That was going to be the typical
response of many. She did not know how her district would get the
money to fix the Tri-Valley School. There were not enough people
in the district to pay for a new school. That was the typical
problem for the rural areas.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in Kenny
Lake, Julie Knutson.
CHAIR JAMES announced to Ms. Knutson that the amount allocated to
her district in concern was $5,311,923 with a local match of
$108,407.
Number 0646
JULIE KNUTSON asked if that was for just Kenny Lake, or Kenny Lake
and Glennallen?
CHAIR JAMES replied that was for the Copper River regional
education attendance area (REAA).
MS. KNUTSON said Kenny Lake was in the same position as Anderson.
She asked if the bill would benefit Anderson because of the 30
percent distribution match?
Number 0688
CHAIR JAMES replied, "no." There was only a 2 percent distribution
match for Copper River. She explained she was referring to the
Denali area previously, not to the Anderson area.
Number 0731
MS. KNUTSON said she was afraid Glennallen would end up with
everything. Kenny Lake was not happy with the wording of the bill.
She said Kenny Lake needed a new school desperately. The current
building was falling apart and was becoming dangerous for the
students.
Number 0749
CHAIR JAMES replied the only way to divide the approximately $6
million around the state was through an application process to
determine the priorities. That process had presented problems in
the past, however. Some districts did not apply and there was
concern surrounding the Department of Education's (DOE) evaluation
process.
Number 0798
MS. KNUTSON replied the Kenny Lake area wanted the legislature to
know how badly it needed a new school.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Knutson to define the school needs of Kenny
Lake.
Number 0820
MS. KNUTSON replied there were unhoused student, leaky faucets, an
old furnace system, icing problems, and an old electrical system,
to name a few. She cited a volunteer was electrocuted due to the
electrical problems.
CHAIR JAMES thanked Ms. Knutson for her testimony today.
Number 0860
CHAIR JAMES announced she did not want to take any action today on
HB 546. Her intention today was to inform the committee members
the status of the subcommittee and to take any public testimony.
CHAIR JAMES further explained the original bill considered the
priority list of the Department of Education. She suggested
returning to that list.
Number 1130
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the problem with the list from the was
that Anchorage was short changed. She understood it was a matter
of shifting dollars which meant that some districts would get less
money.
Number 1156
CHAIR JAMES said the list from DOE reflected those districts that
had applied. It was obvious that Anchorage did not apply for
whatever reasons.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said Anchorage did not meet the established
criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated Mat-Su was robbed according to the list
produced by DOE.
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Ogan if Mat-Su applied?
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied, "he did not know for sure." He
assumed it did.
CHAIR JAMES replied if a school district was not included on the
list, it had not applied.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated if Mat-Su had known this was going to be
a bond issue, it would have applied. If the state was going to
fund the schools then he agreed with the proposed approach.
CHAIR JAMES suggested giving the school districts a period of time
for the application process. It would behoove the legislature to
establish the priorities as opposed to the distribution.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that was a laudable goal, but it had
never happened before. A distribution would not meet anybody's
needs entirely. That fact needed to be accepted. Once that was
accepted, it could then be said the money was distributed
equitably.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested considering the districts that
had already presented a proposal at the top of the list, while all
new applications would be prioritized. The subcommittee needed to
research further why some districts did not send a request.
CHAIR JAMES suggested re-opening an application period. She did
not like the idea of putting the already existing proposals at the
top of a list.
HJR 34 - LIMIT LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO 90 DAYS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HJR 34.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Jerry Sander, sponsor of HJR
34, to present the resolution to the committee members.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS said this was the same resolution he
presented three weeks ago. If the resolution had been enacted the
legislators would have been home by now. He cited he had received
21 constituent calls from his wife advocating for the resolution.
He stated the time was now to consider changing the length of the
legislative session to 90 days.
Number 1234
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said due to his years of contracting
experience, a contract typically took the exact number of days
allotted. He believed if the resolution was passed, legislation
would be prioritized enhancing the quality. He supported HJR 34.
Number 1282
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked Representative Sanders if he had
considered the change in the balance of power between the
legislature and the Governor?
Number 1303
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS replied the Governor was controlled by the
public as much as he was controlled by the legislature. Therefore,
the extra time spent at home dealing with constituents would bear
more pressure on the Governor than by being in Juneau.
Number 1320
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked Representative Sanders if HJR 34 was
drafted to mean 90 days and not 91 days as the present system
operated?
Number 1338
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS replied HJR 34 was drafted so that 120 days
were substituted with 90 days. Therefore, it was possible that a
session could go 91 days.
Number 1366
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said 90 days could be self-imposed right
now if that was what the leadership wanted. There were broader
issues concerned here that affected the budget cycle, resolutions,
bills presented, and bill crafted, for example. She said she
supported more interim committee work and more time off during the
legislative session to present the work of the committees to the
public. Gavel-to-Gavel definitely involved the public more, but
it did not allow individual testimony from the public. Moreover,
this was a very important and serious discussion. She suggested an
interim or subcommittee to look at the issues further.
Number 1540
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied if the issue was tabled or put into a
subcommittee the resolution was killed. It was time to "fish or
cut bait."
Number 1572
CHAIR JAMES agreed that if the session was shortened to 90 days the
work would get done. More work would be done before arriving in
Juneau, for example. She was not sure of the semantics of the
resolution, however. She suggested keeping the resolution clean so
that when it went to the public it would be supported. She
announced she was willing to move the resolution forward today.
Number 1699
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS stated his major concern was how the balance
of power would be affected between the legislature and the
Governor. He was not sure how he would vote on this resolution
when it reached the floor of the House of Representatives.
However, he believed a good healthy debate on the floor would be
very helpful to understand the issue and for the people that watch
Gavel-to-Gavel. He would not vote against passing it out of the
House State Affairs Committee.
Number 1799
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that HJR 34 move from the committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
Representative Robinson objected. She was the author of two
proposed amendments that had not been heard yet.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said there was a motion on the floor so it
either needed to be rescinded or action taken.
Number 1866
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER rescinded the motion. There was no
objection.
Number 1896
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained Amendment 1 proposed to change
the constitution from an annual to a biennial state budget. She
stated the change would allow state employees to do their job. By
the time the legislature left Juneau, the departments started
working on the next year's budget instead of doing their job. She
believed the amendment would improve the process.
Number 2020
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to adopted Amendment 1.
Representative Ogan objected.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he understood the argument that a shorter
session would save the state money. He agreed it would require
more organization.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN further stated Amendment 1 was a substantial
change. He needed time to look at it further and how it would
affect the process. He was afraid it would weigh down the
resolution through the rest of the legislative process. He would
vote against it.
Number 2095
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the idea of a biennial budget was
laudable. However, the reality of the state budget was such that
it fluctuated with the price of oil compared to a stable resource,
such as, a state income tax. He reiterated the budget was too
unpredictable, therefore, he would not support the amendment.
Number 2155
CHAIR JAMES said she would vote against the amendment because it
turned the resolution into two issues. She suggested looking at it
again in the future, however.
CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives James,
Ogan, Ivan and Porter voted against the motion. Representatives
Robinson and Willis voted in favor of the motion. The motion
failed.
Number 2205
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to adopted Amendment 2.
Representative Ogan objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained Amendment 2 allowed for a "baby
step" change. It called for the first session to be 120 days and
the second session to be 90 days. The first session was used more
for organization and familiarization. The second session was
before an election season so the shorter session would give more
time to go back home, for example. She reiterated this was a baby
step towards the change that Representative Sander's proposed in
HJR 34.
Number 2338
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he objected to the amendment. There was
enough time during the interim.
CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives James,
Ogan, Ivan and Porter voted against the motion. Representatives
Robinson and Willis voted in favor of the motion. The motion
failed.
Number 2419
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that HJR 34 move from the committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing
no objection, it was so moved from the House State Affairs
Committee.
Number 2449
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Robinson to present amendments to
the Chair before the meeting to prevent the confusion earlier. She
would not have accepted the motion from Representative Porter had
she known about the amendments.
TAPE 96-54, SIDE A
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON apologized. She believed the resolution
was going to be put into a subcommittee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0065
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee meeting at
9:45 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|