Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
04/10/2015 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB82 | |
| HB102 | |
| HB85 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 82-INTERNET SERVICES FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS
8:04:08 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 82, "An Act relating to funding for Internet
services for schools."
8:04:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved CSHB 82, Version 29-LS0307\W as the
working document. There being no objection, Version W was
before the committee.
8:05:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, Alaska State Legislature,
paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Last year when the legislature passed its omnibus
education bill a program was created to help schools
improve their internet service. The main driver for
the need for increased internet speed and capacity was
the implementation of the Department of Education's
online testing. With the implementation of this
program two groups were created, those who had
10megbits of service in 2014 and those who didn't.
This bright line poses a problem in that school
districts' internet contracts don't run on a yearly
basis. They tend to run for periods of 3, 4, or 5
years. The Nome Public Schools for example had a
contract that expired in 2013. While renewing that
contract they were informed by the department that
they would need to increase their internet capacity in
order to comply with requirements for online testing.
The school district did the right thing and took money
from other places in their budget to fund that
requirement. Because of the timing of that action
they are not eligible for the program established last
year. This bill seeks to correct this problem.
8:07:23 AM
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff, Representative Neal Foster, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the sectional analysis on the CS for HB
82, stating Section 1, reaches back in time for the service
level that is the keystone for qualification for the program.
He advised that when House Bill 278 was passed, the key driver
for qualification for this internet program was to be part of
the Federal E-Rate Program and have less than 10mgbits of
service as of the effective date of the bill in 2014. He
reiterated that HB 82 goes back in time to the qualification
requiring schools to be part of the Federal E-Rate Program but
the internet service level had to be below 10mgbits in 2013, and
acknowledged that school district contracts work through multi-
year cycles, not single year cycles. He referred to Sec. 2, and
advised it prepares for additional funding in the supplemental
budget allowing schools to qualify for funding if supplemental
funding is available. He offered that this irrelevant section
could be eliminated or remain. He noted that currently the
program is funded at $3.6 million and is in both the House of
Representative and the Senate side of the operating budget so it
is a "non-conferenceable" item. Implementation of this
legislation, he explained, will allow the same amount of money
to be spread across more school districts, and the amount of
money it will cost the state won't change.
8:10:01 AM
CHAIR KELLER clarified that if Section 2 remains and generates a
fiscal note, the Finance Committee would be involved, or this
committee could calculate a zero fiscal note or determine the
section is not necessary and the bill could go to the floor and
be a factor in the end game.
MR. LABOLLE responded that "maybe" Chair Keller is correct as
the bill has a Finance Committee referral, but if there is a
zero fiscal note it is possible the House Finance Committee
would waive that referral.
8:11:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how many schools would be affected.
MR. LABOLLE deferred to the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), but opined the number is approximately seven
school districts.
8:11:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that she is confused by this
chart as it shows an approximate $6.2 million cost to upgrade to
10megabits per second, and the FY2015 total award to each school
district is just under $5 million. She asked whether that is
the annual cost of this program.
MR. LABOLLE answered that last year, with the passage of House
Bill 278, $5 million was appropriated to the program and that is
the amount awarded to the schools. He noted it has been reduced
in this year's budget to $3.6 million, which is the amount to be
distributed to the participating school districts.
8:12:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented that hopefully it will come up
in conference committee as Broadband is one of the topics for
conversation.
MR. LABOLLE advised that both the House of Representatives and
the Senate passed $3.6 million in the Broadband grant so it is a
"non-conferenceable" item.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND responded "That is unfortunate." She
advised she has traveled to Nome on several occasions and has
been disturbed by the lack of adequate internet access for the
public schools. She opined it is critical with testing and
curriculum only available via Broadband to provide this to
schools and stated she is completely in support of this bill.
8:13:41 AM
LINDA THIBODEAU, Director, Division of Libraries, Archives &
Museums, Department of Education and Early Development, advised
that the division distributed the funding this current fiscal
year.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Thibodeau to explain the charge
and how much reduction, or additional schools would be added,
and what proportional reduction among those would receive a
portion of the $3.69 million.
MS. THIBODEAU responded that if the supplemental funding was not
included, the fiscal note would change. She was uncertain
whether Representative Seaton was asking whether the
supplemental funding is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that she should assume Sec. 2,
of the bill is deleted. He said he is referring to Section 1,
and the $3.6 million distribution among districts for the
discounted E-Rate, and asked how many more school districts
would there be, and how much of prorated discount would be to
the other districts that are receiving funds under the program.
He offered that he may be confused on the application of this,
and to correct him.
MS. THIBODEAU replied that EED did not collect information on
how many districts, or how many extra schools ... how many
schools in FY2014 would want this internet, or need this
internet upgrade because it collected the amount they were
paying and not bandwidth information. She advised the
department did not have the information as to who needed upgrade
bandwidth until it received the applications for this year's
funding. At that point, she explained, what is shown in the
chart for the funding is who applied and qualified for the
program which was 28 districts, 122 schools. She mentioned that
Representative Foster advised that seven more districts might
qualify, but the department would have to wait and see when that
happens. The department doesn't know how many districts have
applied or schools, what their costs would be, what level of
bandwidth they would need to upgrade to get to 10, who their
vendor is, and what their fiber is or their mode of delivery of
interest because bandwidth costs are different for every
location. She said that during the application time the
department would have to collect and perform the pro rata
distribution with the funding available.
8:17:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the seven districts have
already upgraded to 10, but were looking at moving back the date
so they can qualify for the discounted program.
MS. THIBODEAU answered that is her understanding as well.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that it is unknown within the
seven districts how many schools it includes and it won't be
known until the distribution is made.
MS. THIBODEAU said "That is correct." The numbers in the fiscal
note relate only to the schools and school districts currently
in the program.
8:19:00 AM
CHAIR KELLER referred to the department's fiscal note Ms.
Thibodeau provided of $4,064,000 is the total cost, of which
$3.[6] has been allocated as it stands right now, and
acknowledged it hasn't passed.
MS. THIBODEAU agreed.
8:19:48 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:19 to 8:20 a.m.
8:20:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND reviewed the fiscal note and said the
costs are just over $4 million and the proposal is to reduce it
to $3.6 million. She asked whether each school will be
proportionately reduced depending upon the available funds.
MS. THIBODEAU responded that the districts may or may not decide
to reduce their bandwidth, and what they'll get is a percentage
of the costs they applied for, approximately 75-80 percent of
their costs. She indicated they could find the remainder of the
costs somewhere else in their budget.
CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony.
8: 21:53 AM
ROBIN JOHNSON, Nome Public Schools, stated she is representing
Nome Public Schools, and paraphrased from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In 2013 Nome Public Schools was in a contract renewal
year for our internet services. In order to acquire
E-Rate funding for our services we are tied to the
contract renewal timelines set forth by the E Rate
program. At this time EED had made it clear that
State online testing would be a reality during our
next year internet contract cycle, and we knew we did
not have the bandwidth we would need to meet be able
to test one at this time. We increased our bandwidth
from 3Mbps to 11Mbps in 2013, in anticipation of the
new testing requirements. This increase required that
an additional 76K come from our general fund to cover
just 20% of our annual internet expense. I ask that
you pass HB 82, making the program retroactive to June
30, 2013 so that we receive the same funding
opportunities as other districts in our situation.
When speaking about broadband we should not be left
out because of our contract renewal dates and the E-
Rate application timeline.
8:23:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how many schools are in the Nome
school district.
MS. JOHNSON replied there are four schools in the district,
which are all based upon one internet connection.
8:24:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked the amount of their total school
budget.
MS. JOHNSON said she is a technology representative and doesn't
have that information.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ surmised that within Ms. Johnson's
division there is a budget, or does she not know about the
budget.
MS. JOHNSON responded she has a budget for the technology
department and the internet services are under Communication.
She advised the total internet amount the vendor receives is
$381,000 for the annual internet service, with public schools
paying 20 percent of that bill, and the E-Rate program paying
the remainder.
MS. JOHNSON, in response to Representative Vazquez, answered
that GCI is their internet provider.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ surmised that the schools pay 20 percent
and the rest is paid through the E-Rate.
MS. JOHNSON said she was correct, and it is for the 2014-2015
school year. Next year their E-Rate eligibility has increased
and they will be refunded 85 percent making their costs 15
percent, she explained.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ queried what the increase is attributed
to.
MS. JOHNSON responded that the percentage they are eligible for
is based upon the (indisc.) reduced lunch count of students in
the district, so it changes every year.
8:26:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked the source of the GCI signal,
satellite or microwave from Southcentral Alaska.
MS. JOHSON replied that it is microwave from Southcentral
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled a fiber networks coming out of
Ireland across the top of Canada and the United States heading
for Japan. She opined they were going to drop internet service
on the Northern and Northwest coast of Alaska. She asked Ms.
Johnson whether she was aware of its existence and how soon it
will arrive in the Nome area.
MS. JOHNSON responded that she is aware of the Quintillion
Network and opined there are "rumblings" that it will not happen
at this point due to the expense of bringing that hub into the
community. She remarked that if it were to happen it would be a
year or two out before it would take place.
8:28:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER clarified that the terrace system is a
fiber optic system across the tundra and when it gets closer to
the coast it is relayed microwave tower to microwave tower, and
is being extended all through the North and past Nome. He
explained the microwave speed is almost as fast as fiber but a
more economical system. He said the "over the top route" ...
would have cheaper internet because it would be going to a place
such as Japan, but he did not know whether it was capitalized
for the over the top portion.
8:28:55 AM
POSIE BOGGS, Non-Profit Literacy Programs, said she is
testifying on behalf of Literate Nation, Alaska Coalition,
Alaska Branch of the International Dyslexia Association,
Decoding Dyslexia, and herself. She referred to the fact
Alaska's literacy rates have not moved significantly in 10
years, that Alaska is last in reading, and related that literacy
is a concern. She advised she has been tracking technology in
literacy since 1994, when children were being "tortured" with
the first version of "Dragon Naturally Speaking 7." During
conferences she has attended, technology solutions have emerged
to assist the literacy problems in Alaska. She conveyed that
her business has been teaching students that school districts
have failed to teach to read, and she could be put out of
business with the new technology, and is "thrilled." She
explained that the new technology offers the potential to move
Alaska's reading levels significantly higher, but it requires
good solid broadband. There are virtual reading coaches and
internet based interventions, that Alaska could put into all of
the resource classes and move the students out of special
education. She described it as the best scientific research
regarding reading instruction Alaska has ever had, and noted she
is not selling any of the products. She asked the committee to
fund as much broadband as possible because adult illiteracy in
Alaska increases the per capita health care costs by $8,173.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted Ms. Boggs excitement and believes
she has the packet of information she gave her in February.
MS. BOGGS answered in the affirmative and noted that every child
in this state can be taught to read.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she would share the packet with the
committee.
8:34:35 AM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
8:34:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON described the discussion as the financial
distribution of an offset amount and opined it is a financial
question that is looking at a distribution between those that
qualify and how many qualify. The distribution rate may be in
question, due to the e-rate discount, and the preparation of a
chart may be helpful information for the committee. However, he
said, it is a financial distribution question and stated support
for the bill.
8:36:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ expressed hesitancy to support the bill,
lacking clarity for how the funding is working and why the
school district has a fiscal note of slightly over $4 million
for this fiscal year, which continues to 2020.
MR. LABOLLE responded that he had detailed conversations with
the Department of Education and Early Development (EED) about
the fiscal notes, and advised that the fiscal note isn't the
cost to the state as it is the total need. He explained that if
the legislature were to fully fund the program and need, this is
the cost anticipated. He noted a grant funds the program and
that grant program is the $3.6 million mention earlier, which is
what is funded in the FY2016 budget. He stated that $3.6
million is going out to the program regardless of implementation
of CSHB 82.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether it is a state or federal
grant.
MR. LABOLLE replied that the $3.6 million is a state grant, with
a Federal E-rate Internet program involved, and in order to
participate in this state program a participant must be a
qualified recipient of the E-rate program.
8:38:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ requested the name of the department
administering the state grant.
MR. LABOLLE answered the Department of Education and Early
Development.
8:39:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO thanked the sponsor for bringing the
bill as it is "really" appropriate, he said.
CHAIR KELLER remarked that he agrees with Representative Vazquez
but is willing to move the bill and let the House Finance
Committee review the bill.
8:39:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report CS for HB 82, labeled 29-
LS0307\W, Glover, 4/9/15, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 82(EDC) moved from the House Education
Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER echoed Chair Keller's comments to let the
House Finance Committee determine allocation of funds and future
liabilities.
8:41:01 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:41 p.m. to 8:44 a.m.
8:44:48 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB82 Work Draft LS0307 W.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Version A.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 FiscalNote.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Documents Nome Public Schools Testimony.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Documents (70-30 list).pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Documents e-rate schools.PDF |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| CSHB102 draft version P.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB102.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Support Mike Lyons.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| CSHB85 Version F.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 85 |