HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE March 29, 1993 3:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Cynthia Toohey, Co-Chair Representative Con Bunde, Co-Chair Representative Gary Davis, Vice Chair Representative Al Vezey Representative Harley Olberg Representative Bettye Davis Representative Irene Nicholia Representative Tom Brice Representative Pete Kott COMMITTEE CALENDAR Confirmation Hearing - Board of Dental Examiners APPOINTEES PASSED ON TO THE HOUSE WITH NO RECOMMENDATIONS HB 82: "An Act relating to school construction grants and major maintenance grants to school districts; providing for school district participation in the cost of school construction and major maintenance; creating a major maintenance grant fund; and providing for an effective date." MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH NO RECOMMENDATIONS HB 83: "An Act making appropriations for construction and major maintenance of schools; and providing for an effective date." MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION WITNESS REGISTER DR. BURTON MILLER, Appointee Board of Dental Examiners (Address & Phone not provided by Comm. Secy.) Position Statement: Provided information and answered questions related to his appointment GARY BADER, Director Division of Administrative Services Department of Education 801 West 10th Street Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894 Phone: (907) 465-2875 Position statement: Answered questions on HB 83 JOE RYAN, Legislative Aide to Representative Al Vezey Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 102 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: (907) 465-3719 Position statement: Answered questions on HB 83 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 82 SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE GRANTS BILL VERSION: CSHB 82(FIN) SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR TITLE: "An Act relating to school construction grants and major maintenance grants to school districts; providing for school district participation in the cost of school construction and major maintenance; creating a major maintenance grant fund; creating an education facilities maintenance and construction fund and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/22/93 131 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/22/93 132 (H) HES, FINANCE 01/22/93 132 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DOE) 1/22/93 01/22/93 132 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (DOT, REV) 1/22/93 01/22/93 132 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 02/09/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/09/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/09/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/09/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/16/93 (H) HES AT 03:30 PM CAPITOL 106 03/16/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/22/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/23/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/23/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/29/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 83 SHORT TITLE: APPROP:SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION GRANT FUND BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR TITLE: "An Act making appropriations for construction and major maintenance of schools; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/22/93 134 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/22/93 134 (H) HES, FINANCE 01/22/93 134 (H) -REVENUE FN (REV) 1/22/93 01/22/93 134 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOT) 1/22/93 01/22/93 134 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 02/09/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 02/09/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/09/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/09/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/16/93 (H) HES AT 03:30 PM CAPITOL 106 03/16/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/23/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 03/23/93 (H) MINUTE(HES) 03/29/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-50, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m., noted members present, and announced the calendar. CONFIRMATION HEARINGS - BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS Number 053 CHAIR BUNDE invited Dr. Burton Miller to offer any opening statement he might have concerning his appointment. DR. BURTON MILLER, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, testified via teleconference. He has been an active member of the dental board since May, 1992. CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. Miller if he understood the time commitments of board service and if he was comfortable with those commitments. Number 066 DR. MILLER said he had attended all board meetings since his appointment, and had volunteered for other commitments, some involving travel outside Alaska. CHAIR BUNDE invited committee members to question the appointee. Number 076 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY noted Dr. Miller's resume and the training it cited, and asked whether he was required to take recurrent training. (A copy of Dr. Miller's resume may be found in the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee Room, Capitol Room 106, and after the adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.) DR. MILLER answered that he had to take 14 hours of continuing education each year, or 28 hours each two years, dealing with hands-on dentistry, a recent requirement new in the last six years. Number 094 REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS asked about professional presentations cited on Dr. Miller's curriculum vitae, notably an Alaska Pacific University presentation on Mercury Toxicity from Dental Amalgams in 1987, a South Central District Dental Society presentation on the Potential Health Hazards of Dental Amalgam in 1988, and a guest lecture to numerous groups in Illinois and Alaska on Bio-compatibility of Dental Materials. Representative G. Davis asked about bio-compatibility. DR. MILLER answered that bio-compatibility was the chemical component of dentistry, or how the restorative materials used for dental implants react chemically with the (unintelligible) environment - whether the materials are bio-compatible. He said that the manufacturers of some materials used in his office, such as composites, have undergone "live cell" tests, in which the finished composite product is introduced into a petri dish along with live cells. If the material kills off the cells, it is considered toxic, he said. If the cells grow, the material is considered cancerous, and if the cells are not affected, the material is considered bio-compatible, he said. Number 126 CHAIR BUNDE invited other questions or comments. He then mentioned Dr. Miller's comments indicating a desire to help the governor's efforts to promote alternative medicine, and Dr. Miller's goal of creating a balance between orthodox and bio-compatible dentistry. Chair Bunde asked Dr. Miller if he viewed his position on the board as one of an adversary to orthodox dentistry. DR. MILLER answered, "No, absolutely not." He said the two camps had lots to learn from each other. At the last board meeting, he said, the board had asked for an opinion as to whether dental amalgams were safe devices. He said he explained that Congress and the President in 1976, gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the sole authority to judge amalgams safe or unsafe, and that as yet the FDA had not accepted amalgams as a totally safe and effective dental material. He said that if the state board approved amalgams, it would be overriding the FDA authority, and he suggested passing over the issue, which is what happened. Number 152 CHAIR BUNDE understood that even pure oxygen could be harmful in excessive amounts, and that amalgam was toxic. He asked if there were cases in which amalgams could be used, and people could accept such fillings, without adverse effects. DR. MILLER answered that yes, there were such cases, but dentistry did not, at that time, have a definitive test to make such a determination. He had learned from his sources that there would be a study published on the effects of amalgams on humans. He said the studies had been done by three prestigious U.S. universities, and more information was becoming available as to the potential toxicity problems of dental amalgams. He said several research studies on sheep and monkeys have been published in prestigious refereed journals. DR. MILLER stated the studies showed identical responses; that mercury leaks out of the teeth, and that mercury concentrates in other organs, including brain tissue and kidneys. He alleged the sheep study showed a 50 percent reduction in kidney function, and the study on monkeys showed similar effects. He assumed that similar studies were being performed on human tissue, though he was not sure of the exact procedure. He said there was a growing body of documented research showing the potential toxic effects of mercury dental amalgams. DR. MILLER said while some people could use such materials without problems, some people can also smoke cigarettes without getting cancer. Number 186 CHAIR BUNDE asked Dr. Miller whether he used such fillings. DR. MILLER replied in the negative. CHAIR BUNDE asked whether, as a member of the dental board, he could fairly and impartially judge a dentist who used such materials. DR. MILLER said absolutely, and that he had just judged more than 100 candidates at a dentistry board test in Loma Linda, California. He said one of the projects was a dental amalgam along with a gold inlay, and he believed he judged them very fairly. Number 198 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS referred to the bio-compatibility test, and asked whether Dr. Miller had performed such tests. DR. MILLER answered that he had not, but others had, and the test showed the amalgam had killed off live cells surrounding it. He described the amalgam as a mixture of approximately 52 percent elemental mercury, with the balance of the alloy being comprised of silver, zinc, tin and copper, which also had toxic effects on humans. Years ago, he said, it was believed that the amalgam would be stable when it hardened. However, in 1979, someone used a mercury vapor detector on amalgams, and was shocked to discover how much mercury was leaking off the amalgams, he said. DR. MILLER said this gave rise to what dentists call the "Third Amalgam War," when doubts began to arise as to the material's safety. Number 221 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked if he knew whether the cells that died off in the bio-compatibility test were human, sheep or monkey cells. DR. MILLER replied in the negative. CHAIR BUNDE thanked Dr. Miller for his time. DR. MILLER asked Chair Bunde how long the confirmation process was likely to take, noting that he had much material from the board and wondered whether it would be worth his while to begin delving into it. Number 231 CHAIR BUNDE answered that the committee meeting was an opportunity to take testimony on the appointment, and the committee would pass Dr. Miller's name, along with those of other appointees, to the House floor, where individual votes would be taken on each appointee. DR. MILLER asked how long that process would take. CHAIR BUNDE said that the scheduling was done at the pleasure of the Speaker of the House, who had not discussed the issue with him. DR. MILLER thanked Chair Bunde, and signed off from the teleconference. CHAIR BUNDE noted that the committee would also consider Kevin L. Gottlieb, DDS, of Anchorage; Robert W. Robinson II, DMD, of Wasilla; Carolyn J. Michels, of Nome; and, Gloria C. Gresser, of Barrow as appointees to the Board of Dental Examiners. He passed out the letters of transmittal and asked committee members to sign them, noting that the signatures did not give any indication as to how the members would vote on the actual confirmations on the House floor. Number 255 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS asked why the letters indicated that the appointees had already been appointed. CHAIR BUNDE answered that the appointees still needed to be confirmed. He then announced his intent to hear HB 82 as soon as the teleconference link was established with other sites. He announced further that the committee would be hearing HB 82 for the third time, and it was his intention to move both HB 82 and HB 83 from committee. He noted that the meeting was being teleconferenced to Anchorage, Soldotna, Valdez, Tok, Kuspuk, Tanana, Galena and Glennallen. He opened public testimony, and noted that the committee had adopted a work draft on March 23, 1993. HB 82: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE GRANTS Number 291 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY did not have a copy of the working draft. REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE also needed a copy of the work draft. Number 297 CHAIR BUNDE OFFERED an AMENDMENT to the work draft concerning school districts' participating share, on page 2, line 22. His amendment recognized both the value of participation and the financial realities of some school districts. He proposed dropping the district participating share on line 22 to 5% from 20%. He asked for objections or discussion. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS had no problem with the amendment, and favored a top cap of from 30% to 40% at the most. He sought amendments to the language concerning all of the district participating shares, and said he would be glad to take the amendments one at a time. Number 323 REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG preferred that the district participating share for the districts identified on line 22 to be 0%. CHAIR BUNDE understood that preference, and called for further discussion on the amendment. Number 333 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS desired to add an amendment. CHAIR BUNDE preferred to take care of the amendments one at a time, and, hearing no objections, DECLARED HIS AMENDMENT PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS MOVED an AMENDMENT to page 2, line 23 to change the percentage to 25% from 30%; line 24 to change the percentage to 30% from 40%; and line 25 to change the percentage to 35% from 50%. Number 341 CHAIR BUNDE OBJECTED to the motion for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS said there was an effort to make school districts responsible for their desires, but also a desire to make the funding as equitable as possible. He said the 50% matching requirement was too high, and if the contribution levels were lowered for the poorer districts, then similar adjustments should be made for the richer districts. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that the committee was debating an issue not germane to the school funding issue, as up to 75% of the funds for school construction in the state did not come from the state, but from local or federal sources. Number 366 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the Department of Education (DOE) could tell the committee what impact the amendments just passed would have on the list of school projects outlined in HB 83. CHAIR BUNDE said it would be premature, as he intended to rewrite HB 83 thoroughly. Number 374 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked whether HB 83 would not be driven by HB 82. CHAIR BUNDE said he might have misunderstood Representative Brice's question, as the two bills were certainly related. Number 379 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he had been provided HB 83, a list of projects and an appropriations bill with $150 million going to those projects. He asked if the changes to HB 82 would change the amount of money available for the projects in HB 83. CHAIR BUNDE said that, while he hesitated to speak for the DOE, the percentages under consideration by the DOE were not the same as those presented by the DOE. He said the changes were revenue-positive. REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG said the committee might at least have to make HB 83 not subject to the changes in HB 82, because he was sure that HB 83 represented money available before any changes, and that if the committee changed the funding figures in HB 82 it would throw off the numbers in the priority list. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that the committee would have to change the effective date on HB 82. He said the committee should keep in mind that it could establish various effective dates for different parts of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked a representative from the DOE to explain the impacts of the changes in the district participating share provisions of HB 82 on Rural Education Attendance Areas (REAAs). Number 412 GARY BADER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION said, "It is very difficult to say, the first question about overall, would it require more state money to fund the same list, or less, (I) simply can't say without actually running the numbers. The table is different, the match requirements are different. As you recall, HB 83 as it's before you without the committee substitute, has a sliding scale on the first year. The matching requirements weren't as aggressive as they were further out. So it's just impossible to say." MR. BADER continued, "In terms of the REAAs, clearly we have a zero match the first year. This committee substitute would have a 5% match. And so in terms of the dollar amount of match that would have to be raised, I couldn't say, but we can certainly get a feel for it." Number 424 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG said that the work draft of CSHB 82 (HES) eliminated paragraph C, relating to the phase-in of the REAA district participation share. He said it was obvious that such a provision could not take effect in 90 days. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY raised a point of order. He asked if it was possible to limit discussion to the amendment before the committee, instead of veering back to HB 82, as amended. Number 437 CHAIR BUNDE noted that the amendment before the committee was whether to make the changes in district participation shares that Representative G. Davis had suggested, which reduced the percentages from 30% to 25%, 40% to 30%, and 50% to 35% for school districts falling into varying categories of property value. He said the committee would consider the changes one at a time. He then asked if there were objections to the first reduction from 30% to 25% on line 23. He said, "Forgive me, Anchorage, but they have told me they would support 30%, and so I would speak against your reduction to 25%." He then asked for other opinions. Number 446 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS asked Representative G. Davis to repeat his amendment. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS repeated his amendment for Representative B. Davis' clarification. Number 452 REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked whether the committee had already passed an amendment to line 22. CHAIR BUNDE replied in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS wanted to make an amendment. CHAIR BUNDE said there was a previous amendment on the floor. He called for a roll call vote on that amendment. Those voting YEA were Representatives B. Davis, Nicholia, Brice, and G. Davis. Those voting NO were Representatives Vezey, Olberg, Toohey, and Bunde. The AMENDMENT FAILED. Number 474 REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS MOVED an AMENDMENT that would eliminate the requirement that REAAs make a matching contribution for state school construction funding. She did not believe that REAAs could afford to pay 5% of the cost of such projects. CHAIR BUNDE noted that even the governor had wanted REAAs to eventually pay a 3.8% match. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS wanted to put CSHB 82 (HES) back to its original state, in which the match would start at 1.5%, then rise to 3.8% over several years. Number 476 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG noted that the matching requirement for REAAs in the original version of HB 82 called for them to pay a 1% match in the school year starting in 1994, which would increase by 1.4% in each of the next two years, to a total of 3.8%. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said that her amendment would have the effect of requiring matching contributions of 5% from districts with property valued at from $1 to $100,000 per full value per ADM (Average Daily Membership). Number 485 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY OBJECTED. CHAIR BUNDE noted the objection and called for further discussion. Number 487 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Representative B. Davis to restate her motion. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS repeated her motion, to have the 5% matching requirement apply to those school districts with property value per ADM of from $1 to $100,000. That would eliminate from that bracket the 21 REAAs, which have no property value. CHAIR BUNDE said that at this point the REAAs would be receiving 100% state funding for school construction. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said the committee could later address that issue. CHAIR BUNDE noted that the governor's bill required the REAAs eventually to pay 3.8% as matching grants. If the districts could pay 3.8%, he said, they could pay 5%. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that HB 82 had a clause exempting a REAA from having to make any matching contribution for school construction, if it could prove that it either could not do so, or that providing such a share would jeopardize its federal education funding. That clause had been eliminated from CSHB 82 (HES), she said, and recommended it be returned. Number 504 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY was reluctant not to require any local contribution, whether it was labor, material or equipment. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said her amendment did not deal with REAAs, as it was limited to districts with more than $1 per full value ADM in property value. She said the REAA issue could be dealt with later, but she did not want to require a 5% match from REAAs. Number 509 CHAIR BUNDE called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a roll call vote on Representative B. Davis' amendment. Those voting YEA were Representatives Nicholia, Brice, B. Davis, and Olberg. Those voting NO were Representatives Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, and Toohey. The measure FAILED. He then asked for further discussion. Number 524 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked a clarifying question on the percentage of local contribution shares required under HB 82, which were outlined in the working draft. CHAIR BUNDE said that the percentages existed as they were in the working draft. He called for further discussion on HB 82 as a whole. Number 527 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said his subcommittee on HB 82 had met three times, and had not gotten past section 3. He noted that the major impact of the bill was in its later sections, establishing the DOE as the body which would appropriate money for the school construction program outlined in the bill. He said that while the subcommittee debated the draft formula, the process of allocating grants was more important. He expressed concern about the legislature abrogating its appropriation authority. He recommended DELETING sections 4 through section 11. He then, for discussion purposes, MOVED DELETION of sections 4 through section 12. Number 548 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS OBJECTED. Number 550 MR. BADER said that the sections mentioned were already in statute, and the sections in CSHB 82 (HES) merely redefined construction projects to be capital improvement projects, and inserted language regarding use of the maintenance account, instead of the capital improvement account. He said the DOE valued the distinction between health-life- safety and unhoused student needs, and maintenance needs. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that the rest of the sections had little substance, and merely brought the statutes into line with the actions in the earlier sections of CSHB 82 (HES). Number 564 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG suggested that school districts precluded from future construction by paragraph 3 would not care about the subsequent sections. He said the committee had to give the DOE some leeway sooner or later. He allowed that he might not be understanding Representative Vezey's suggestion. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the sections he proposed deleting contained mostly housekeeping details, but also contained some key phrases that emphasized that CSHB 82 (HES) was based on the premise that a fund was established to be appropriated without further legislative action, specifically in section 7 and section 8. His concern was aggravated in that it appeared as though the legislature would have to use the constitutional budget reserve funds as a funding source, requiring a three-fourths vote of the full legislature. Number 586 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE CALLED THE QUESTION. CHAIR BUNDE noted the call, and repeated Representative Vezey's motion to delete section 4 through section 12. He called for a roll call vote. Representative Vezey voted YEA. Those voting NO were Representatives G. Davis, Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia, Brice, Toohey, and Bunde. The MOTION FAILED. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE MOVED an AMENDMENT to section 3, line 7, adding a new section D that would consist of language taken from the original HB 82, page 3, line 7, starting with "an REAA" and continuing through line 11. He said the amendment would return to the working draft the provision that REAAs would be exempted, in whole or in part, from the local contribution requirement if the commissioner of the DOE determined that the REAA could not afford the contribution, or if the contribution would jeopardize the REAA's federal funding. TAPE 93-50, SIDE B Number 005 CHAIR BUNDE noted OBJECTION to the motion, and invited discussion. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that his amendment would add a section C to section 3 which would allow various other funding sources, plus sweat equity or equipment, to be used as sources of matching funding. He said that his amendment would make it more equitable to require matching contribution from areas with lower property values. Number 030 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked whether the committee was assuming that REAAs could meet the match requirement with materials, equipment or labor. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE replied in the affirmative. He added that if REAAs could not offer any of those as matching contributions, then they should be able to write for a state grant. Number 045 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "May I further continue? If they don't have that to match, they don't have children in school. There is no way ... " REPRESENTATIVE BRICE interrupted. He disagreed, saying he had been in many villages on Alaska's west coast that could not afford to meet such matches. Number 052 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that rural school districts are the poorest of the poor, and that people in some villages are unemployed and barely survive. She said it would be as hard to find people to volunteer their time and work in the Bush as it would be in Anchorage. She SUPPORTED the amendment, as it addressed the actual bleakness of the situation in villages, where education was nonetheless important. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY echoed Representative Toohey's statement. He said that the cost of labor was 50% of the cost of construction, and land, about 5%. He could not conceive of an area that could not come up with 5% of the cost of school construction. He said that urban areas were not being treated fairly under HB 82. Number 100 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the inconceivable did occur, and if a school district was so broke it could not provide labor, resources or other contributions, then the amendment would never be put into effect. REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked to see a draft contract for a deal in which a district would provide volunteer labor. He said that land had value, and near Delta Junction 30 acres were for sale at $22,000. He said every community wanted to contribute something to its schools, and that was the reason he was drafting a school tax bill for the unorganized borough. He said that the local labor match would be difficult to effect, unless it were for site preparation. Number 135 CHAIR BUNDE strongly FAVORED a local match as a way to build pride in ownership. He SUPPORTED Representative Brice's amendment, as he understood the need for safety valves or mechanisms in exceptional circumstances. He called for a roll call vote. Those voting YEA were Representatives Brice, Toohey, Bunde, G. Davis, Olberg, B. Davis, and Nicholia. Representative Vezey voted NO. The MOTION PASSED. Number 150 CHAIR BUNDE called for further discussion and, hearing none, said he would entertain a motion. Number 153 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY MOVED PASSAGE of HB 82 with individual recommendations. CHAIR BUNDE asked for objections and, hearing none, the MOTION CARRIED. The committee next addressed HB 83. HB 83: APPROP: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION GRANT FUND Number 170 CHAIR BUNDE opened public testimony on HB 83. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY distributed copies of a blank CS version of HB 83. REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked if the CS version of HB 83 was different from the version under consideration earlier. CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Vezey to address the question. Number 179 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that the CS contained changes in the funding source. The original funding source for HB 83 was to have been a school construction fund, the name of which he could not recall. The CS to HB 83 discussed in the HESS subcommittee which he chaired considered the General Fund as a source of funding. The blank CS currently before the committee assumed the constitutional budget reserve as its source of funding, he said. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Representative Vezey if he followed the governor's priority in writing his work draft. She observed that some of the construction proposals in the work draft were low on the governor's list. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied in the negative. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA repeated her question. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY repeated his answer. Number 206 CHAIR BUNDE said the governor's priority list did not come close to allocating funds in relation to the percentage of students in a district or area. He said that the blank CS was an attempt to allocate the funds more equitably; the more students in a district, the more projects it received. The governor's construction projects' proposal invested 9% in Anchorage, 8% in Fairbanks, 3% in Mat-Su, and 0.3% in Kenai, but 56% in REAAs, he said. In the CS, the funding was distributed in approximate proportion to the distribution of the student population in the state, he said. CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that the title called for appropriation from the constitutional budget reserve, and called that a major step forward which he believed deserved to be noted. Number 231 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked for comment from the DOE, and asked a departmental representative if he had seen the list earlier. MR. BADER answered that the list contained in the blank CS was presented in the subcommittee two weeks before. He said he could not comment, and added that when the DOE assembled the list it had not tried to balance it according to percentages of money spent by each school district. Number 245 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said the governor had written his list based on how long schools had been waiting for funding, and on whether the funding addressed life-threatening situations. MR. BADER said the governor's list was built according to an internal DOE ranking of all projects statewide, and that there was a decision to spend approximately $40 million on maintenance, with the balance coming from the school construction account. Number 261 CHAIR BUNDE had a letter from the governor seeking a technical adjustment to the funding list. He said the Ketchikan Gateway Borough High School was already under construction, and that the funding amount in HB 83 should be $9,501,600. He said there had been a funding error, which the governor's suggested funding level would correct. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE MOVED an AMENDMENT to increase the Ketchikan High School line to the level requested by the governor. Number 279 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY OBJECTED. He did not believe it was possible to simply add money to that project without cutting funding elsewhere in the bill. He opposed any motion to add an increment without taking a corresponding decrement. CHAIR BUNDE said the committee would discuss the decrement after addressing the increment. Number 290 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS said that HB 83 drew money from the constitutional budget reserve. He said any additions to the bill could simply be added to the bill, and the additional money withdrawn from that reserve fund. REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked Representative Brice to amend his motion to increase the total appropriation by the same amount as it increased money for the Ketchikan High School, which he said was $2,850,500, as stated in the governor's letter. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY did not believe the motion was necessary, as the $8,240,000 in the blank CS was a state grant, and if there was a 20% local match, the project would have enough money to be completed. Number 305 MR. BADER said the project had been going on for several years. The DOE believed Ketchikan had already met its obligation for matching funds, he said, which was the reason the appropriation amount was understated. He said the school project was in its final phase, and short-funding it by about $1.3 million would force the addition of another phase to the project, and add expenses. There followed much general discussion among committee members relating to the total amount of money necessary to fund the various phases of the high school building project, how much money had already been appropriated for it, and how much of the Ketchikan school district's obligation for local matching funds had already been provided. Number 355 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE CALLED THE QUESTION. CHAIR BUNDE acknowledged the call for the question of whether the committee should amend the working draft of HB 83 to increase the appropriation to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough for the final construction phase of its high school building project to $9,501,600. He called for a roll call vote on the motion. Those voting YEA were Representatives G. Davis, Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia, Brice, Toohey, and Bunde. Those voting NO were Representatives Vezey, and Kott. The MOTION PASSED. CHAIR BUNDE said that the committee then faced the question of whether to increase the total appropriation by $1,261,666, or whether there should be a decrement in that amount to the total appropriation amount. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE believed the motion was to increase the total appropriation. CHAIR BUNDE said that the committee had already increased the Ketchikan portion but had not decided if there would be a decrement. He asked if Representative Brice was making a motion to increase the total appropriation by the $1,261,666 making the total appropriation $109,441,663. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE CALLED THE QUESTION. Number 450 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked if the committee was working from HB 83 or from the CS for the bill. He was notified that the committee was working from the CS version. He then asked if the committee was amending the amount in section 1 as well as the amount of the appropriation. CHAIR BUNDE said the committee had amended line 12 to read $9,501,600. Further discussion followed. Number 465 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE announced that he had to leave for another engagement, and asked the chair's intention. CHAIR BUNDE intended to have a vote on the bill soon. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked for 15 to 20 minutes. CHAIR BUNDE noted that there was an amendment on the table to increase the total amount of the appropriation to $109,446,663. He called for further discussion. Number 470 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY OPPOSED the AMENDMENT because the committee would get unlimited requests for additional projects, and $150 million in FY 94 school spending had been agreed upon. Without some discipline, he said, the requests for more funding for school construction would be unlimited. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS could not disagree with a little discipline, and stated there had been some dispute about the numbers. He did not want to see the state's share of the Ketchikan High School project reduced, as his district had experienced the shock of the state reducing its share of school funding, and leaving it up to the local school district to make up the difference. He said it was impossible for the committee to deduce the meaning of the governor's letter. He said he would support the legislation as a way to reduce the shock to the people of Ketchikan. CHAIR BUNDE asked for more discussion, and hearing none, called for a roll call vote on the amendment. Those voting YEA were Representatives Kott, Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia, Toohey, Bunde, and G. Davis. Representative Vezey voted NO. The MOTION PASSED. CHAIR BUNDE announced that the appropriation from the constitutional budget reserve in HB 83 was $109,446,663. He called for discussion. Number 500 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG asked if the committee was willing to dive into the constitutional budget reserve at that point. CHAIR BUNDE said he was ready to do so. Number 506 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT SUGGESTED a TECHNICAL AMENDMENT to page 5 line 25, concerning $1.2 million for a new Eagle River elementary school road, and said that he would like to see the money used for roads, even though it was probably appropriated to schools. CHAIR BUNDE said he could not speak to the correctness of the list, as it was taken from the governor's list. He examined the original HB 83, and asked Representative Vezey to offer information on the project. Number 518 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the best information the committee had was the information in the bill, and that Representative Kott was the first to question it. MR. BADER SUGGESTED that DELETING the word "roads" from the language in question and INSERTING the words "new elementary" would probably cover the intended purpose, and allow the money to be used for either purpose. CHAIR BUNDE asked Representative Kott if he would make such a motion. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT MOVED AMENDING page 5, line 25 to DELETE the word "roads" from the language in question and INSERT the words "new Eagle River elementary." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "If we could build a school for $1 million, I'd say let's do it. I don't think we can." REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said the money must be for site preparation, not a whole school. CHAIR BUNDE asked if the committee had the original information the projects were taken from. He said Representative B. Davis was probably correct. Number 555 JOE RYAN, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, testified in Juneau on HB 83. He said that the Anchorage School District did not appropriate money for roads when it built the school. Since that time, inflation had raised the cost of roads to the price listed in HB 83, he said. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT WITHDREW his AMENDMENT. Number 562 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE MOVED an AMENDMENT to page 3, line 19 of the bill, to ADD $61,631,000 for phase two of a Fairbanks North Star Borough high school. CHAIR BUNDE RULED Representative Brice OUT OF ORDER. Number 572 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY OBJECTED. CHAIR BUNDE said, "Now, back to reality. Representative Brice, would you like us to vote on that amendment? REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated that he did, indeed, want the committee to vote on his amendment, when he had finished reading it. He said his amendment also included changes to page 1, line 5, increasing the total appropriation to $170,811,963. CHAIR BUNDE continued, "Any other discussion? May we vote us back to reality?" REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY reminded the chair that she had objected to the motion. CHAIR BUNDE said that the committee would then vote. REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS added, "I thought he was just kidding, but if he's serious I need to know what he wants us to vote on. Because if we're going to play that game then I guess we could all start putting some out." CHAIR BUNDE threatened, "If we're going to play that game, we'll adjourn. If he wants $61 million for a high school in Fairbanks, a noble cause, but..." A roll call vote showed that those voting YEA were Representatives Brice, and Vezey. Those voting NO were Representatives Kott, Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia, Toohey, Bunde, and G. Davis. The MOTION FAILED. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted for the record that he and Representative Vezey had voted together on an issue, setting a record. TAPE 93-51, SIDE A Number 026 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY MOVED PASSAGE OF THE BILL WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. CHAIR BUNDE heard OBJECTION to the motion, and called for a roll call vote. After a brief interruption from Representative Kott, the chair ordered the roll call vote to resume. Those voting YEA were Representatives Olberg, B. Davis, Nicholia, Toohey, Bunde, G. Davis, Vezey, and Kott. Representative Brice voted NO. The MOTION PASSED. ADJOURNMENT Seeing no further business before the committee, CHAIR BUNDE adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.