HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE May 8, 1998 7:30 P.M. TAPE HFC 98 - 163, Side 1 TAPE HFC 98 - 163, Side 2 TAPE HFC 98 - 164, Side 1 TAPE HFC 98 - 164, Side 2 CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring Representative Davies Representative Martin Representative Davis Representative Moses Representative Grussendorf Representative Mulder Representative Foster was absent from the meeting. ALSO PRESENT Karen Rehfeld, Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Education; Morgan, Facilities Section, Education Support Services, Department of Education; Richard Cross, Deputy Director, Department of Education; Eddy Jeans, Manager, School Finance Section, Education Support Services, Department of Education. SUMMARY SB 11 "An Act relating to state aid for school construction debt; and providing for an effective date." HCS CSSB 11 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Education. SB 36 "An Act relating to transportation of public school students; relating to school construction grants; relating to the public school foundation program and to local aid for education; and providing for an effective date." SB 36 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. SB 297 "An Act relating to breast-feeding." CSSB 297 (2d RLS) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Labor, 4/2/98. SB 313 "An Act relating to sponsor certification of initiative petitions; relating to sponsor identification during petition circulation; relating to the voidability of an initiated law; placing limitations on the compensation that may be paid to sponsors of initiative petitions; prohibiting payments to persons who sign or refrain from signing initiative petitions; and repealing procedures for filing a supplementary initiative petition." HCS CSSB 313 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, dated 3/19/98. SENATE BILL NO. 36 "An Act relating to transportation of public school students; relating to school construction grants; relating to the public school foundation program and to local aid for education; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed committee substitute for SB 36, work draft #0-LS0070\J, dated 5/8/98 (copy on file). RICHARD CROSS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION observed that Mr. Jeans would explain the proposed committee substitute. He noted that the school funding formula uses an adjusted student count to distribute funding. A school site table was developed as part of the Alaska School Operating Cost Study, commissioned by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. It also uses district cost factors instead of an area cost differential. The district cost factors were also developed as part of the Alaska School Operating Cost Study. The actual number of students is adjusted based on the size of the school, special needs, and the district's operating costs. An additional 26 million dollars is included. EDDY JEANS, MANAGER, SCHOOL FINANCE SECTION, EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION reviewed the legislation by section. He pointed out that state aid equals basic need minus a required local contribution and 90 percent of eligible federal impact aid. Basic need equals the sum subsection (D). He reviewed the calculations in section AS 14.17.410: (A) The adjusted daily membership (ADM) of each school in the district is calculated by 30 applying the school size factor to the student count as set out in AS 14.17.450; (B) The number obtained under (A) of this paragraph is 01 multiplied by the district cost factor described in AS 14.17.460; (C) The ADMs of each school in a district, as adjusted according to (A) and (B) of this paragraph, are added; the sum is then multiplied by the special needs factor set out in AS 14.17.420(a)(1); (D) The number obtained for intensive services under AS 14.17.420(a)(2) and the number obtained for correspondence study under AS 14.17.430 are added to the number obtained under (C) of this paragraph. Mr. Jeans noted that there is a 4-mill tax levy on the full and true value of the taxable real and personal property in the district, not to exceed 45 percent of the district's basic need. He observed that local contribution could not exceed a two-mill tax levy on the full and true value of the taxable real and personal property in the district, or 23 percent of the district's state share of public school funding for the fiscal year. He maintained that this provision would maintain the federal disparity standard. He observed that newly formed boroughs could phase in the required local effort over a four-year period. The special needs factor is 1.2. The intensive services funding is equal to the intensive student count multiplied by five. In order to receive funding for special education, gifted and talented education, vocational or bilingual education a district must have its plan on file with the Department. Mr. Jeans noted that the legislation sets out funding for correspondence program set at 80 percent of the ADM. Funding for the state boarding school is included in AS 14.17.440. This allows the Mt. Edgecumbe School to receive funding for eligible intensive services. The school size factor table begins on page 5, line 22. A school must have at least 10 students. If a school has less then 10 students they would be counted with the school which has the lowest ADM in that district. District cost factors are included under AS 14.17.460. These are based on the McDowell Group Alaska School Operating Cost Study, March 1998. The Department is required to monitor cost factors and prepare and submit a report of proposed new district cost factors to the legislature by January 15th of every other year. He estimated that the base student allocation would be $3,928 dollars. Mr. Jeans explained that schools eligible for quality school funding would receive the districts adjusted ADM multiplied by $16 dollars. A funding floor would be established for school districts that received less funding under the old foundation formula. The floor would be permanent. State aid is defined for the purposes of setting the floor. School districts are required to submit student estimates by November 5th. School districts cannot accumulate an unreserved fund balance of greater than 10 percent of their current year expenditures. The Department of Community and Regional Affairs is required to determine the full and true value of taxable real and personal property in each district. School districts must budget for and spend at least 70 percent of their school operating expenses on instruction. "Instructional component" includes expenditures for teachers and for pupil support services. Mr. Jeans noted that the student counting period would be the 20-school-day period ending the fourth Friday in October. The counting period for state correspondence study would be July 1 through the fourth Friday in October, The distribution of state aid is not changed by the legislation. Mr. Jeans observed that the Department would be given the authority to prorate the school foundation formula if insufficient funds are appropriated. Districts are required to maintain complete financial records and spend their money for school purposes. The Department is required to develop regulations to implement the legislation. Mr. Cross observed that school districts would be required to provide, at a public meeting for parents, information which shows how the school is performing to standards and how the district determines the standards are being met. A "School District Report Card to the Public" would be included. Beginning in January 15, 2001, the Department would provide the governor and the legislature with a performance report on each public school and designate the schools. Schools performing well would be accredited. By August 2002, schools would be designated as distinguished, successful, deficient or in crisis. Those schools in crises would be required to submit plans for improvement. The Department would be required to facilitate the improvement process and provide technical support. Existing staff or qualified persons would be used. If any school district continues to be deficient or in crisis for a two year period the school district would appear before the State Board of Education and submit a report including steps to improve quality in the school. Mr. Cross noted that the legislation includes definitions of a "school district" and a "charter school". Additional standards are given to the Department to develop performance standards for reading, writing and mathematics. An assessment system would be provided to all school districts. Mr. Jeans reviewed section 13. He noted that a reference to employing a chief school administrator was added in section 13 and deleted in section 14. Districts that both contract and operate their own pupil transportation would be reimbursed. The school district portion would be reimbursed at 90 percent and the contractor would be reimbursed at 100 percent. Mr. Jeans noted that the Department is required to apply the same criteria in determining eligibility for reimbursement. The legislation clarifies that districts may employ a chief administrator. He noted that other sections made technical changes to current statute to correspond to changes made by the legislation. "Funding" was changed from "foundation". Section 31 amends AS 14.30.650. It provides that the Special Education Service Agency would receive a grant equal to $15.75 times the number of students in the state in the average daily membership of the proceeding year. The change is required because there will no longer be special education categorical funding under the new foundation program. Section 40 is transition language requiring the Department to define the term "school" in regulation. The Department is required to submit district cost factors by January 15, 2001. Centralized correspondence funding is set at 70 percent in the first year, 75 percent the second year and then 80 percent the third year. The minimum expenditure for instruction would be set at 60 percent in the first year, 65 percent the second year and then 70 percent the third year. The Special Education Services Agency is given a one-year grace period in regards to data. Section 45 requires the Department to compare the use of school funding and submit a report. Mr. Cross clarified that special education students would not be identified for the purposes of state aid. Special education students would continue to be identified and included in school plans. Mr. Cross noted that the report mandated under section 45 would use a school size table developed by the McDowell group. He stressed that the report requirement would test the method of funds distribution against an instructional unit within two years to determine if a school based method of calculation is more effective and equitable then a community based means. He explained that the Department would promulgate emergency regulations to define a "school" for purposes of the Act. The school definition would be consistently applied to all districts in the state of Alaska to eliminate differences in school systems across the state. The number of small schools allowed in larger communities would be limited. Co-Chair Therriault observed that the legislation would make the employment of a chief administrator permissive. State statute would not mandate that a school administrator be employed. Representative Martin spoke in support of the change. He questioned if a chief school administrator would be paid for within the student allocation. Mr. Cross explained that the amount of funding would not changed based on the employment of a chief school administrator. He noted that the Aleutian Educational Region Attendance Area does not employ a chief school administrator. They contract with Unalaska for administrative services. Under current law, school districts must have a contract with a person who is licensed as a superintendent in the State and is subject to professional ethics requirement of the Professional Teaching Practices Commission. Even though the Aleutian East Borough School District does not have a superintendent in their employment, they do have a certificate administrator who is responsible and accountable for the operation of the district. He thought that the legislation would allow a district to employ someone that did not have credentials to manage the district. A chief school administrator would not be subject to any licensure requirements of the state of Alaska. He stressed that the intent of the legislation should be clarified. He questioned if the intent is to allow districts to hire anyone they want as a chief administrator. In response to a question by Representative Martin, Mr. Cross explained that the legislation applies an equal rate of 20 percent to all districts for kids with exceptionalities. Only children with continual medical attention are accounted separately. He did not think that over identification of those students would be of concern. Co-Chair Therriault noted that this was subject to abuse under the old formula. The flat multiplier was instituted to prevent manipulation of these students to achieve a funding advantage. He observed that it is difficult to fake the intensive need category. Representative Davies referred to page 25, line 16. He noted that the Department would define "school" for calculation of state aid. Mr. Cross provided members with the proposed regulation, 4AAC 09.007, defining "school" for the purpose of calculating state aid (copy on file). He maintained that the definition would not be subject to abuse and would evenly and consistent apply resources. Schools of less then 10 students would be counted with another school. Communities with an ADM of 10 to 50 students would have one school. Communities with an ADM of 51 to 750 would have one elementary school and 1 secondary school. In communities with an ADM greater than 750, each facility which is administered as a separate school would be counted as 1 school. Each alternative school with an ADM of less than 250 would be counted with the largest school in the district. (Tape Change, HFC 98 - 163, Side 2) In response to a question by Representative Mulder, Mr. Cross noted that schools must have property insurance that includes fire insurance. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Cross noted that page 17, line 1 states that if a public school continues to be deficient or in crisis for two years there would be a public meeting with the Board of Education to present a written report. Representative Mulder referred to subsection (i) on page 17. Mr. Cross stressed that the Department can show which methods have proven effective for schools in crisis. Districts would be encouraged to adopt strategies that have been proven to work. He observed that placing someone in the school would not be successful if the school did not want them present. He explained that the Department would bring proven expertise. Representative Kelly referred to the student counting periods. Mr. Cross noted that the legislation uses the same count period as the current formula, except that a spring count is not used. If good cause is shown, upon written request, the commissioner can allow another 20-day count period for special circumstances. In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Mr. Cross expressed concern that over half of the school districts in the State would not met transitional amount. He emphasized that goals should be attainable. He observed that the Department would work to improve information relating to how schools spend their funds as recommended by the McDowell study. He estimated that the largest school districts would meet the 70 percent level. Representative Davies suggested that a reporting standard be set. Mr. Jeans raised technical issues relating to the legislation. He referred to page 2, line 6. He noted that under current law, AS 14.17.021(d) allows the Department to make adjustments to correct underpayments in the previous fiscal year. He recommended that a similar provision be adopted. He noted that the Department must distribute state aid based on audited local revenues. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the provision was already included in the proposed draft. Mr. Jeans referred to page 5, line 7. He noted that the base student allocation is premature. He suggested that the "the base student allocation and multiplying that product by" be deleted. This would allow an adjusted ADM for correspondence students. Representative Davies questioned if a charter school could be a boarding school. Mr. Jeans noted that AS 14.17.440 deals with the Mount Edgecumbe boarding school. A charter boarding school would not fall under this provision. Mr. Jeans noted that page 8, line 13 states that the Department shall establish a competitive grant process to implement the quality school system. He pointed out that grants would not be competitive and recommended that "competitive" be deleted. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the legislature would appropriate money for this purpose on a yearly basis. Mr. Jeans explained that entitlement would be established that would be built into the budget. Representative Davis noted that an upper limit is set. There is no lower limit. Mr. Cross explained that $16 dollars would be used as a multiplier. If sufficient funds are not appropriated the funding would be prorated. The amount could not exceed an adjusted ADM multiplied by $16 dollars. Representative Martin questioned if the floor would be permanent regardless of student size. Mr. Cross explained that as school districts gain or loss students the amount of funding that they would receive would depend on the new formula. District cost factors are not intended to be permanent. The Department would submit recommended changes to the district cost factor every other year. The legislation also requires that the school size table be compared to another method of allocation to determine if there is a more equitable way of distribution. He emphasized that a school funding floor is an appropriate means to use while an adjusted per student means of distributing public school funding is developed. Representative Martin expressed concern that children can be counted more than once. Co-Chair Therriault stated that if a student moves the districts cost goes down. The floor is only a portion of the funding. Mr. Cross noted that page 11, line 13 states that "instructional component" includes expenditures for teachers and for pupil support services. He pointed out that "teacher" is one classification of expenditure within the function of instruction. He suggested that the language be amended to included instruction, special education instruction and support services, and support services for students and instruction and school administration. He explained that support services for students would included boarding home programs, social workers, and guidance services. Library services, audiovisual and teacher in service days would be included under instructional services. District administration and operation and maintenance would not be included. Representative Martin questioned if there is a national standard. Mr. Cross was not aware of a national standard. Co-Chair Therriault summarized that the definition would differentiate between the operation of the school building and the central office that administers the whole program. Representative Davies questioned where janitorial services would be listed. Mr. Cross explained that they would be under operation and maintenance. Representative Davis noted that some janitors bring supplies. Mr. Jeans emphasized that the Department needs a better means of setting a target as recommended by the McDowell Study. He stressed that principles are an important part of instruction. Representative Kelly recommended that a subcommittee should define instructional component and establish results based criteria. In response to a comment by Representative Davis, Mr. Cross stressed that the McDowell report found that any formula needs to be dynamic. The report emphasized the need for better data. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if two student counts should be included. Mr. Cross noted that the spring count would generally be lower than the fall count. He felt that the fall count would be the most effective. He did not recommend two counts. In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr. Cross noted that the two biggest districts heavily weight the 70 percent average. He did not think that averaging would be effective where school district size varies as in the state of Alaska. He felt that 70 percent was a misleading number. The McDowell report stated that administration was the area in which they had the least confidence due to inconsistency in the data. Representative Grussendorf stressed that the legislation is a starting point that will need to be revisited. He stressed that recommendations should come from the school districts. Representative Davis asked if the Department is comfortable with the definition of alternative school. (Tape Change, HFC 98 -164, Side 1) Mr. Cross stated that there were not many "tough calls" in applying school districts to the definitions. He emphasized that there could be some flexibility in how alternative schools are counted. The Department is suggesting that alternative schools be counted with the largest school in the district. He noted that the McDowell Group indicated that the definition improves the quality and validity of the study. Representative Grussendorf asked if there is any alternative school over 250 students. Mr. Cross noted that there are alternative programs in Anchorage that are in excess of 250 students. Mr. Jeans provided members with an eight-page spreadsheet demonstrating the effect of SB 36 on school districts (copy on file). He discussed the spreadsheet. He noted that the North Slope Borough would not receive the floor. Municipalities must contribute the equivalent of a 4-mil tax to qualify for the floor. The North Slope Borough is at approximately 2 mils. The first page of the spreadsheet showed the funding amount under SB 36, the existing state aid, the difference between the current and proposed amount, floor, net change and Quality education grant. Additional spreadsheets contained projected ADM, correspondence students in and out of district, special education factors, state support, required local support, federal impact aid, mill rate and full determination, and instructional expenditure amounts. Co-Chair Therriault asked why Galena's local support was at 34.6 mills. Mr. Jeans noted that some smaller communities have low property wealth. Hoonah receives timber receipts that the city appropriates to the school in addition to their cap for education. Districts were compared to see how they fared with the local cap on page 8. Klawock and Nenana would have to contribute additional money to meet the required local effort. No districts are over their maximum. Page eight contained the percentage spent on instruction versus administration and potential reduction in state aid if the percentage spent on the instructional unit is not met. In response to a question by Representative Martin, Mr. Jeans explained that timber receipts are reported as local revenue. Federal impact aid refers to federal dollars deducted from the foundation program. In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Mr. Jeans explained that the required local effort is 45 percent of basic need for the North Slope Borough, Valdez, Unalaska and Skagway. He noted that Unalaska has large fish processing plants that increases their full value determination. SB 36 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. SENATE BILL NO. 11 "An Act relating to state aid for school construction debt; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a proposed committee substitute, work draft 0-LS015\D, 5/8/98 (copy on file). MICHAEL MORGAN, FACILITIES SECTION, EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION stated that he worked with Co-Chair Therriault's staff on the proposed committee substitute. Mr. Morgan reviewed changes incorporated by the proposed committee substitute. He noted that page 4, lines 2 and 3 were changed to assure that the last of the bonds authorized in 1993 stay intact. The bond election passed in Fairbanks in 1996 would stay in place. Subsection 8 on page 4 looks at retroactive reimbursement for projects in districts, which passed bonds that were not funded. He explained that there was no money left under the formula to reimburse some school districts for bonds that were passed. Representative Mulder noted that Ketchikan, Anchorage, and Sitka passed bonds with the stipulation of a 70/30 split with the State. Mr. Morgan noted that subsection 9 on page 4 offers 70 percent reimbursement for districts that have projects, which bond in the future. Page 5, lines 1 and 2 states that an amount due a municipality for reimbursement may not be reduced by the cost to the department to administer the reimbursement program. Page 6, line 28 through page 7, line 1 was added at the request of the Department. This would allow the same types of projects that are currently available under the grant program in AS 14.11.008 to be offered. Projects to improve space and allow operating cost reductions would be covered. Section 6, on page 7 provides a maximum authorization of $357,143,000. This is the total project cost. The state share would be 70 percent of this number. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the municipality would provide the bonding. The state share would be paid through debt reimbursement general funds. KAREN REHFELD, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION noted that the fiscal note includes the repeal of the off-set of the cigarette tax distribution for the debt retirement program, of $2.4 million dollars in FY 99. Representative Mulder MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee substitute work draft 0-LS015\D, 5/8/98. Representative Kohring MOVED to report HCS CSSB 11 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. HCS CSSB 11 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Education. SENATE BILL NO. 313 "An Act relating to sponsor certification of initiative petitions; relating to sponsor identification during petition circulation; relating to the voidability of an initiated law; placing limitations on the compensation that may be paid to sponsors of initiative petitions; prohibiting payments to persons who sign or refrain from signing initiative petitions; and repealing procedures for filing a supplementary initiative petition." Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a memorandum from Richard Glover, dated May 8, 1998, regarding the constitutionality of the legislation (copy on file). He observed that a Supreme Court decision ruled that payment for signatures could not be prohibited. The Court did not specify if the amount could be limited. There is a current court case regarding the requirement that an identification badge be worn. The 10th circuit court ruled that this is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will consider the case. The state of Alaska has signed a brief in support of the constitutionality of this provision. Representative Mulder MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 during the previous meeting. Amendment 1 would place a cap on the payment for signatures. Representative Davies OBJECTED. He spoke in support of a daily or hourly fee. He felt that a fee per signature would result in a more aggressive approach by the collector. Representative Grussendorf expressed concern that problems could occur with an hourly rate. Representative Mulder spoke in support of the amendment. He stressed that a cap of a dollar per signature would slow the collection of signatures. Representative Davies questioned the State's interest in slowing signatures. He noted that the amendment would limit the amount of money that can be paid. The existing language only limits the manner of payment. He maintained that the amendment would be closer to a constitutional challenge. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Therriault OPPOSED: Moses, Davies, Grussendorf Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Foster were absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (6-3). Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on file). Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. Representative Davies explained that Amendment 2 would delete the requirement that the collector wear a badge. He noted that the Court ruled that the badge deprives the collector of the protections of anonymous speech. He spoke in support of addressing the sponsorship of the petition on the petition itself. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that "sponsor" refers to the person carrying the petition. Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of Amendment 2. Representative Mulder disclosed that he has been requested to work on an initiative petition. Representative Martin argued that the person gathering signatures is not necessarily the sponsor. Co-Chair Therriault reiterated that the legislation indicates that the sponsor is the person carrying the petition. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Moses, Davies, Grussendorf, Kelly OPPOSED: Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Davis, Therriault Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Foster were absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (4-5). (Tape Change, HFC 98 - 164, Side 2) Representative Davies WITHDREW Amendment 3. He MOVED to ADOPT a conceptional amendment: "The name of the group circulating the petition and the name of the group paying for the petition, if different, shall both be prominently displayed in bold, capital letters, on the bottom of each signature page of the petition." Representative Mulder spoke against the amendment. Representative Davies stressed that it would be the same disclosure as occurs when a sign is posted. Representative Martin spoke against the amendment. Co-Chair Therriault questioned how the amendment would distinguish between a group that is paying to work the petition through the system and a group of citizens that are not being paid to collect signatures. Representative Davies stressed that the intent is to identify the group that is behind the petition. The group can be identified through the Division of Elections or APOC. Representative Grussendorf stated that he is opposed to paid for petitions. He spoke in support of the amendment. He expressed concern that any group could come to the state of Alaska and pay for a petition. Members questioned if the name of the group is already listed on the top of the petition. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Moses, Davies, Davis, Kelly, Grussendorf OPPOSED: Martin, Mulder, Kohring, Therriault Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Foster were absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (5-4). Representative Davies referred to section 6. He noted that section 6 repeals AS 15.45.170 and 15.45.230. Co-Chair Therriault read: AS 15.45.170: "Upon receipt of notice that the filing of the petition was improper, the initiative committee may amend and correct the petition by circulating and filing a supplementary petition within 30 days of the date that notice was given;" And AS 15.45.230: "An initiative submitted to the voters may not be held void because of the insufficiency of the application or petitions by which the submission was procured." Representative Davies MOVED to delete section 6. He noted that the amendment would maintain the status quo. Representative Kelly OBJECTED. He spoke in support of a "drop dead" date. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Moses OPPOSED: Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Therriault Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Foster were absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (3-6). Representative Davies MOVED to delete AS 15.45.230. Co- Chair Therriault OBJECTED. Representative Davies spoke in support of the amendment. He emphasized that if an initiative is certified and goes on the ballot, then the issue is decided. A small insufficiency in the gathering process would not be sufficient to null the election. He maintained that the statute would prevent frivolous lawsuits. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Moses, Martin OPPOSED: Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Mulder, Therriault Co-Chair Hanley and Representative Foster were absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (4-5). Representative Davis MOVED to report HCS CSSB 313 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HCS CSSB 313 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the Office of the Lieutenant Governor dated 3/19/98. SENATE BILL NO. 297 "An Act relating to breast-feeding." Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of the legislation. He observed that the legislation would prevent legal sanctions for nursing children in public. Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is a zero fiscal note accompanying the legislation. Representative Davies MOVED to report SB 297 out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSSB 297 (2d RLS) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Labor, 4/2/98. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11 p.m. House Finance Committee 16