Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/02/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB278 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 278
"An Act increasing the base student allocation used in
the formula for state funding of public education;
repealing the secondary student competency examination
and related requirements; relating to high school
course credit earned through assessment; relating to a
college and career readiness assessment for secondary
students; relating to charter school application
appeals and program budgets; relating to residential
school applications; increasing the stipend for
boarding school students; extending unemployment
contributions for the Alaska technical and vocational
education program; relating to earning high school
credit for completion of vocational education courses
offered by institutions receiving technical and
vocational education program funding; relating to
education tax credits; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
1:51:05 PM
^AMENDMENTS
1:53:03 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the amendment process.
Representative Munoz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 15, 28-
GH27165\G.5, Mischel, 4/1/14, by Representative Munoz,
Representative Edgmon, Representative Thompson,
Representative Gara and Representative Guttenberg (copy on
file):
Page 1, line 10, through page 2, line 1:
Delete "relating to the local contribution to public
education funding; relating to the withholding of
state aid to public education for teacher retirement
contributions; relating to the teachers' defined
benefit retirement plan; establishing the teachers'
pension reserve fund;"
Page 11, line 21, through page 14, line 3:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 14, line 23:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 16"
Page 14, line 26:
Delete "secs. 18 and 19"
Insert "secs. 16 and 17"
Page 16, line 17, through page 17, line 19:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 19, line 17, through page 22, line 19:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 33, line 29:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24"
Insert "Sections 20 - 22"
Page 33, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "secs. 22 - 24"
Insert "secs. 20 - 22"
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24, 28, 50, and 52"
Insert "Sections 20 - 23, 42, and 44"
Page 34, line 20:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "19, and 29 - 31"
Insert "17, and 24 - 26"
Page 34, line 22:
Delete "Section 20"
Insert "Section 18"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "Sections 37, 40, 43, and 46"
Insert "Sections 29, 32, 35, and 38"
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "secs. 54 - 58"
Insert "secs. 46 - 49"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Munoz discussed the amendment. The intent of
the amendment was to strip the provisions relating to the
Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) from CSHB 278 (FIN),
version G. The reasons were related to concerns from the
administration about the proposal contained in the
legislation. She supported the governor's approach, which
was presented as a method of paying off the unfunded
liability in 20 years. The current plan extended the
payment to 40 years. The local contribution rate was moved
from 12.56 percent to 32.56 percent. She mentioned a
formula allocation to reimburse the school districts, but
no funding contemplated for the University and other TRS
employers.
Representative Munoz stated that the most concerning
portion of the proposal addressed the depletion of the
state's trust funds. The combined trust funds held
approximately 17 billion. The interest from the funds
provided a major contribution toward the payment of the
unfunded liability along with retirement debt both current
and future. She pointed out that the retirement payment
would be approximately $3.5 billion. She wished to avoid
shifting the burden to future generations. She noted that
Commissioner Rodell emphasized concerns that the proposal
would affect the state's credit worthiness, which could
make the approval of gasline financing difficult.
1:56:23 PM
Representative Munoz discussed further concern with the
proposal's lack of vetting. She believed that the large
decision required additional time and deliberation. She
stated that her office requested an actuarial analysis on
the proposal, but had yet to receive it. She believed that
such a large decision required additional time and
deliberation.
Representative Gara stated that Amendment 17 was similar in
nature and he requested that he and Representative
Guttenberg be added as co-sponsors to the amendment.
1:57:45 PM
Representative Thompson acknowledged that the decision was
a difficult one. The bill placed an unpredictable measure
in statute, denying the legislature the flexibility needed.
He wished that prior legislators had arrived at a solution
sooner. He supported the amendment.
Representative Costello considered all of the amendments,
and appreciated the sponsor's sentiment. She noted that the
plan proposed in the bill's format placed a larger lump sum
of $1.4 billion from contributions with a longer period of
time until payout. She mentioned the commitment on behalf
of the legislature to address TRS. She believed that
placing the amounts in statute commits the legislature to
the effort. She stated that she would vote against the
amendment.
2:00:18 PM
Representative Holmes agreed that the issue was difficult.
She noted that the major budget drivers included public
education, Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and
TRS. She admitted that she was conflicted about the issue.
Discussions in the building provided her with valuable
information regarding the unanimity to contribute
approximately $3 billion into PERS and TRS trust funds in
the current year. She noted the unanimity of opinion in the
building regarding a large upfront payment followed by
substantial payments in the upcoming years. She discussed
the state's obligation to pay the liability. She
interpreted agreement between the governor's plan and that
of the Legislative Finance Division. She did not feel that
the CS provided a final product. She predicted continued
discussion and convergence. She knew that actuaries would
be available to help the legislature flush out both plans.
She stated that she would vote against the amendment. She
believed that the final product would be a functional
hybrid of both plans and she was optimistic about the
outcome.
2:03:28 PM
Representative Gara stated that voting along each member's
personal analysis was important. He believed that the
governor's plan made sense because a substantial pay down
of debt led to less future interest. He pointed out future
deficits faced by the state. Annual payments should be as
low as possible, which would be accomplished by a large
initial pay down. The proposal in the CS did not include a
large one-year pay down. He stated that the bill's proposal
was not properly vetted.
Co-Chair Stoltze replied that the bill proposed a $1.4
billion pay-down, while the governor proposed a $1.1
billion pay-down. He clarified that the pay-down proposed
in the CS was larger than the governor's stated proposal.
Representative Gara understood that the governor's proposed
$3 billion pay-down included the $1 billion owed for the
current year. The analysis of the governor's plan included
an additional payment of $2 billion that would lower the
escalating annual costs, which would soon exceed $1 billion
per year, to approximately $500 million per year. He noted
that the legislature could further alter the payment amount
to extend the payments. He had not had the time to analyze
the CS thoroughly. He had not viewed an actuarial analysis
of the plan proposed in the CS. He was most comfortable
with the governor's proposal.
Co-Chair Stoltze interrupted that the bill addressed TRS
alone, while Representative Gara was discussing both PERS
and TRS.
Representative Gara understood and preferred that the
legislature address PERS and TRS together. He stated that
the proposal to contribute an additional $2 billion upfront
would reduce the state's future interest payments. He
stated that he had not been presented with a PERS proposal
or solution and was not comfortably informed about the TRS
proposal in the CS. He expressed discomfort with moving
forward without all of the necessary analysis. He
encouraged the governor to present his plan in the form of
a bill.
2:08:20 PM
Representative Wilson pointed out that fiscal note number
12 had the $1.4 billion contribution spoken about earlier.
She understood the sponsor of the amendment's sentiment.
She asked which plan was most affordable to the state. She
discussed the comparison between a 30-year and a 15-year
mortgage. Most people would prefer to pay a debt in 15
years, but settle for the more affordable 30-year term. She
understood that the governor could choose to pay his
proposed amount despite legislative recommendations. She
pointed out that future payments would be reviewed for the
purposes of bond rating. She stressed the need to take care
of Alaskan retirees. She hoped for an optimistic outcome.
She stated that she would vote against the amendment.
2:10:53 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated that he had initially
hoped for actuarial analysis of the governor's plan, but
another plan was presented in the CS without analysis. He
supported the governor's past recommendations on the issue.
He recalled testimony from Commissioner Rodell expressing
wide-ranging concerns for the state and its bond rating. He
wished to avoid risks until better information was
available. He trusted the concerns of Commissioner Rodell.
He supported the amendment.
2:13:40 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated the level of discussion on the
issue. He discussed the recognition of the legal and moral
commitment. He argued that TRS was an education cost driver
and a legacy issue with no insinuation that the funding
will be used in the classrooms. The payment would encompass
a piece of the state's obligation to the cost of doing
business in the education environment. He noted that the
bill allowed for necessary elevated committee discussion.
He believed that the CS spurred activity and analysis on
the important topic. The bill allowed for presentations and
deliberations.
Co-Chair Stoltze explained that the approach in the CS was
circulating throughout the Capitol prior to the
introduction of the CS. He stated that the administration
had responsibility for providing information in a
forthcoming manner. He noted that the issue was separate
from the PERS issue with a different payment system. The
committee worked to allow the state to meet their moral and
legal obligation. He stated that he had many questions
about the governor's plan. He stated that the amendment may
lead to a plan similar to the governor's proposal. He
stated that approval of the amendment would eliminate the
vehicle for discussion. He welcomed continued debate on the
issue.
2:20:46 PM
Representative Munoz expressed concern about the depletion
of the trust funds over time. Revenue would be lost with
the depletion of funds. The state would generate billions
of dollars over the course of the obligation with the trust
fund. She stated that Deputy Commissioner Mike Barnhill
described the change as radical. The multibillion dollar
change would likely affect the state's credit worthiness
and the ability to obtain gasline financing. She strongly
suggested an actuarial analysis prior to making such a
large decision.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Munoz, Thompson, Edgmon, Gara
OPPOSED: Holmes, Neuman, Wilson, Costello, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (5/5).
2:23:21 PM
AT EASE
2:24:23 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 16, 28-
GH2716\G.10, Mischel, 4/1/14, by Co-Chair Stoltze and Co-
Chair Austerman (copy on file):
Page 34, line 20:
Delete "Sections 16, 25, 27, and 33 - 35"
Insert "AS 14.17.410(b)(1), as amended by sec. 16 of
this Act, and secs. 25 and 33 - 35
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
DANIEL GEORGE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE,
discussed amendment 16, which included collaboration
between the co-chairs offices, Legislative Legal Services
and Legislative Finance Division. The amendment changed the
effective date on page 34, line 20 from June 30, 2014 to
July 1, 2014 as related to the 45-40 percent change in the
required school district contribution.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated Legislative Legal Services'
help with the amendment.
Vice-Chair Neuman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 16 was adopted.
2:26:03 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 28-
GH2716\G.12, Mischel, 4/1/14 by Tammie Wilson (copy on
file):
Page 15, line 30, through page 16, line 16:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 33, line 29:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24 of this Act apply"
Insert "Section 22 of this Act applies"
Page 33, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "secs. 22 - 24"
Insert "sec. 22"
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24, 28, 50, and 52"
Insert "Sections 22, 26, 48, and 50"
Page 34, line 20:
Delete "25, 27, and 33 - 35"
Insert "23, 25, and 31 - 33"
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "29 - 31"
Insert "27 - 29"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "Sections 37, 40, 43, and 46"
Insert "Sections 35, 38, 41, and 44"
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "secs. 54 - 58"
Insert "secs. 52 - 56"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson discussed the amendment, which was
added in the House Education Committee.
Co-Chair Stoltze explained that the inclusion of the
language in the CS was an oversight.
Representative Gara requested further clarification.
Representative Wilson replied that the five-year review
would be removed in section 23. Section 24 referred to
section 23.
2:28:01 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:28:43 PM
Representative Edgmon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 28-
GH2716\G.3, Mischel, 4/1/14, by Representative Edgmon (copy
on file):
Page 15, following line 29:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 23. AS 14.20.150 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) For teachers employed by a rural school district,
the years of employment required to acquire tenure
rights as provided in (a) of this section shall be
reduced by two years. In this subsection, "rural
school district" means a regional educational
attendance area or a school district located in a
small borough or first class city with a population of
less than 5,500."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 33, line 29:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24"
Insert "Sections 22 - 25"
Page 33, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "secs. 22 - 24"
Insert "secs. 22 - 25"
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24, 28, 50, and 52"
Insert "Sections 22 - 25, 29, 51, and 53"
Page 34, line 20:
Delete "25, 27, and 33 - 35"
Insert "26, 28, and 34 - 36"
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "29 - 31"
Insert "30 - 32"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "Sections 37, 40, 43, and 46"
Insert "Sections 38, 41, 44, and 47"
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "secs. 54 - 58"
Insert "secs. 55 - 59"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Edgmon discussed the amendment. He stated
the purpose was to return to language creating a dual track
for teacher tenure. Larger school districts would remain at
the five-year tenure mark, while smaller districts would
use the three-year tenure mark. He listed the larger school
districts. Superintendents in his district had conveyed
that having three-year tenure would help the districts in
terms of recruitment and retention of teachers. He believed
that a three-year period was adequate in a smaller
district.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed that the amendment was offered in
the spirit of good will. He noted that he voted against a
similar amendment on the House Floor last year.
2:31:03 PM
Representative Wilson did not realize that Mt. Edgecombe
would not be included. She pointed out that school
districts could make their own decisions, but the bill
enforced tenure after five years of teacher service. She
believed that tenure could be written into individual
district's contracts. She expressed concerns about
micromanaging school districts.
Co-Chair Stoltze also had issues with the amendment.
Representative Gara asked about a school district's
negotiation of a shorter term.
Representative Wilson understood that the districts could
draft contracts for shorter durations.
Co-Chair Stoltze supposed that the arguments about teacher
tenure would not have occurred if contracts could establish
durations.
Vice-Chair Neuman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 4 was adopted.
2:35:18 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, 28-
GH2716\G.13, Wallace/Mischel, 4/1/14 by Representative Gara
and Representative Guttenberg (copy on file):
Page 15, line 13, through page 16, line 16:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 33, lines 27 - 31:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24, 28, 50, and 52"
Insert "Sections 25 and 48"
Page 34, line 20:
Delete "25, 27, and 33 - 35"
Insert "22, 24, and 30 - 32"
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "29 - 31"
Insert "26 - 28"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "Sections 37, 40, 43, and 46"
Insert "Sections 34, 37, 40, and 43"
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "secs. 54 - 58"
Insert "secs. 50 - 54"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara discussed Amendment 5. He appreciated
Amendment 4, which preserved the current tenure rule for
smaller communities of 5500 people or fewer. He believed
that the comments made by Representative Edgmon applied to
all teachers. Attracting the best teachers in Alaska was of
primary importance, yet the state created roadblocks over
the years by eliminating the pension system. He believed
that altering the tenure schedule would further complicate
the process of attracting teachers to Alaska.
Representative Gara addressed myths about tenure. Tenure
allowed employment protection. A sub-par teacher could be
eliminated even if they had tenure. A tenured teacher that
did not follow school district standards to increase
academic achievement could be fired. Tenure would allow a
teacher to keep their job if performance was good. He
opined that the delay of tenure sent the message to teacher
that even if they perform well, they could be terminated
without reason.
2:39:20 PM
Representative Wilson wished that an underperforming
teacher could be eliminated so easily. She stated that
eliminating a teacher with tenure included a long and
drawn-out process with many checks and balances. A poorly
performing teacher could remain in the classroom for one
year or longer before the necessary documentation was
obtained. Districts wished for a larger pool of tenured
teachers to allow for good choices. She added that unions
were available to protect the teachers. She believed that
the schools deserved flexibility to allow education to
function at a higher level. She advocated for voting
against the amendment.
2:43:13 PM
Representative Costello stated that she opposed the
amendment. She noted rare instances when teachers were not
performing. She believed that five-year tenure would allow
a district to determine that a teacher was performing
appropriately or help them to increase performance. She
felt that her vote against the amendment was one in favor
of students.
2:44:27 PM
Representative Guttenberg believed that a teacher's
performance was determined in a relatively short time
frame. He stated that urban schools faced similar
attraction and retention problems that rural schools
encountered. He expressed support for the amendment.
2:46:39 PM
Representative Gara clarified that a teacher could be laid
off for good-cause reasons. Without tenure, a person could
be let go for no reason whatsoever. He pointed out that a
person could not be fired because of religion, race or
gender. He stated that the best teachers would not be drawn
to Alaska with the tenure practice defined in the proposed
legislation.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Munoz, Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Holmes, Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello,
Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (4/6).
2:49:55 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6, 28-
GH2716\G.21, Luckhaupt/Mischel, 4/1/14 by Representative
Tammie Wilson and Representative Bill Stoltze, (copy on
file):
Page 1, line 2, following "education;":
Insert "relating to the powers of the Department of
Education and Early Development;"
Page 3, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 14.03.083 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) The department and the state Board of Education
and Early Development may not enter into or renew a
contract or agreement, or participate, with any
organization, entity, group, or consortium after the
effective date of this section that requires the state
to cede any measure of autonomy or control over
education standards and assessments, including the
determination of passing scores."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, line 8, following "department":
Insert "may not spend money on implementing standards
that are based on the Common Core State Standards
Initiative and"
Page 14, line 23:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 14, line 26:
Delete "secs. 18 and 19"
Insert "secs. 19 and 20"
Page 33, line 29:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24"
Insert "Sections 23 - 25"
Page 33, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "secs. 22 - 24"
Insert "secs. 23 - 25"
Page 34, line 3:
Delete "Sections 5 and 6"
Insert "Sections 6 and 7"
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24, 28, 50, and 52"
Insert "Sections 23 - 25, 29, 51, and 53"
Page 34, line 20:
Delete "Sections 16, 25, 27, and 33 - 35"
Insert "Sections 17, 26, 28, and 34 - 36"
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "19, and 29 - 31"
Insert "20, and 30 - 32"
Page 34, line 22:
Delete "Section 20"
Insert "Section 21"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "Sections 37, 40, 43, and 46"
Insert "Sections 38, 41, 44, and 47"
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "secs. 54 - 58"
Insert "secs. 55 - 59"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson discussed the Common Core State
Standards Initiatives. She noted that other states were
backing out of participation because of the cost. The
amendment added language enforcing Alaska's autonomy and
control over education standards and assessments.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the amendment implemented the
policy stated by the administration.
2:51:18 PM
Representative Holmes understood that the amendment did not
affect the practice of individual school districts.
Representative Wilson appreciated the question and noted
that the Common Core state standards initiative applied to
the state alone. School districts would retain local
control.
Representative Gara stated that no discussion regarding the
Common Core State Standards Initiative occurred during
House Finance Committee hearings. He recalled that the
commissioner supported the initiatives. He argued that
small school districts lacked the funding to develop their
own curriculum. The Department of Education and Early
Development was assisting those smaller districts with
implementing the standards. The amendment might allow some
districts to implement the standards, while others might
not afford to. By deleting state assistance, the option
might be eliminated for those districts interested in the
Common Core State Standard Initiative.
2:54:06 PM
Representative Wilson replied that the Alaska state
standards were already adopted while the Common Core State
Standards Initiative had not been adopted. She noted that
assistance from the department would include the Alaska
state standards only. The department would allow districts
to adopt the Alaska state standards.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that pointed questions were
directed to the commissioner regarding the Common Core
State Standards Initiative in recent House Finance
Committee meetings. The amendment cleared up the ambiguity
encountered in the earlier hearing. He noted that the issue
was discussed in other committees.
Representative Guttenberg asked about the amendment's
intent. He wondered if amendment addressed both private and
public schools.
Representative Wilson replied that the state could not
negotiate a contract furthering the Common Core State
Standards Initiative. Assistance with the Alaska state
standards was readily available.
2:57:05 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Munoz, Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello,
Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Holmes, Stoltze
OPPOSED: None
The MOTION PASSED (10/0).
2:58:20 PM
AT EASE
3:12:01 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 28-
GH2716\G.19, Mischel, 4/1/14 by Representative Neuman (copy
on file):
Page 18, lines 6 - 31:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 29. AS 23.15.835(e) is amended to read:
(e) The institutions receiving funding under (d) of
this section shall provide an expenditure and
performance report to the department by November 1 of
each year that includes [THE]
(1) the percentage of former participants in the
program who have jobs one year after leaving the
program;
(2) the median wage of former participants seven to
12 months after leaving the program;
(3) the percentage of former participants who were
employed after leaving the program who received
training under the program that was related or
somewhat related to the former participants' jobs
seven to 12 months after leaving the program;
(4) a description of each vocational education course
funded through the allocation set out in (d) of this
section that permits high school students to earn dual
credit upon course completion, and the number of high
school students who earned dual credit in the past
year;
(5) a copy of any articulation agreement established
under (g) of this section that either was in effect
for the preceding year or is in process for the next
year of funding, and the number of high school
students who earned dual credit under each
articulation agreement; and
(6) the performance and financial information needed
to verify the performance of the program as specified
by the department by regulation [PERCENTAGE OF FORMER
PARTICIPANTS WHO INDICATE SOME LEVEL OF SATISFACTION
WITH THE TRAINING RECEIVED UNDER THE PROGRAM; AND
(5) PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYERS WHO INDICATE SATISFACTION
WITH THE SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH THE PROGRAM]."
Representative Costello objected for the purpose of
discussion.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the amendment, which removed
redundant reporting requirements.
3:12:49 PM
Representative Costello expressed comfort with the
amendment that removed the additional reporting
requirements. The information deemed appropriate would
continue to be reported to the legislature.
3:13:39 PM
Representative Costello WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 2 was adopted.
3:14:04 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 28-GH2716\G.1,
Mischel, 4/1/14 by Representative Bill Stoltze, (copy on
file):
Page 19, line 1:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 19, following line 4:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(h) An institution's failure to comply with (e) or
(g) of this section shall result in a withholding
penalty of 20 percent of the funding allocated under
(d) of this section in the following year."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the amendment reinserting a
provision approved by the education committee. He noted
that the 20 percent penalty was inadvertently removed
during the drafting of the omnibus bill. The administration
supported the penalty. He stated that he supported a higher
penalty, but deferred to the greater judgment for the bill
that would be extended for three years. He stated that the
penalty would encourage better compliance, adherence and
performance.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He asked about
the 20 percent penalty for failure to comply with
subsection (e) or (g) of the section. He asked for more
information about the subsections.
3:16:23 PM
DIANNE BLUMER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, stated that subsection (e) outlined
numbers one through three in Amendment 2 including the
percentage of former participants, the median wage of
former participants and the former participants employed
after leaving the program. She stated that subsection (g)
addressed the articulation agreement proposed by the
governor.
Representative Gara asked if the penalty was for education
institutions.
Co-Chair Stoltze informed the committee that finding jobs
for people in their field was relevant to a training
program.
Representative Gara stated that he did not understand the
commissioner's statements.
Commissioner Blumer replied that the subsections allowed
for the withholding of funds if an institution did not
provide the information outlined in the statute. She
explained that the department had past difficulty obtaining
information from some of the institutions. The amendment
allowed for a consequence in such situations.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted the difficulty in measuring some
programs.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
3:19:35 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 14, 28-
GH2716\G.7, Mischel, 4/1/14 by Representative Gara and
Representative Guttenberg, (copy on file):
Page 1, line 2, following "education;":
Insert "relating to the exemption from jury service
for certain teachers;"
Page 2, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 09.20.030(b) is amended to read:
(b) A person may claim exemption and shall be excused
by the court from service as a juror during the school
term if it is shown that the person is a teacher in a
school that is designated as a low performing school
under regulations adopted by the state Board of
Education and Early Development [FAILING TO MAKE
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS UNDER P.L. 107-110]. In this
subsection, "teacher" means a person who serves a
school district in a teaching capacity in a classroom
setting and is required to be certificated in order to
hold the position."
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 14, line 23:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 14, line 26:
Delete "secs. 18 and 19"
Insert "secs. 19 and 20"
Page 33, line 29:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24"
Insert "Sections 23 - 25"
Page 33, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "secs. 22 - 24"
Insert "secs. 23 - 25"
Page 34, line 3
Delete "Sections 5 and 6"
Insert "Sections 6 and 7"
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24, 28, 50, and 52"
Insert "Sections 23 - 25, 29, 51, and 53"
Page 34, line 20:
Delete "Sections 16, 25, 27, and 33 - 35"
Insert "Sections 17, 26, 28, and 34 - 36"
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "Sections 1, 19, and 29 - 31"
Insert "Sections 2, 20, and 30 - 32"
Page 34, line 22:
Delete "Section 20"
Insert "Section 21"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "Sections 37, 40, 43, and 46"
Insert "Sections 38, 41, 44, and 47"
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "secs. 54 - 58"
Insert "secs. 55 - 59"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara discussed the amendment. He stated that
teachers were exempted from jury service in low-performing
schools. The law defining the exemption was no longer
applicable. He stated that schools that failed under No
Child Left Behind to meet adequate yearly progress allowed
teachers to be exempted from jury service. He stated that
adequate yearly progress was no longer used in Alaska,
which eliminated the exemption. He stated that the
amendment reestablished the jury service exemption for a
low-performing school under regulations adopted by the
state board of education and early development. The stated
would determine the definition of low-performing schools.
3:21:35 PM
Representative Holmes expressed concern about jury
selection. She asked if the teachers were available for
jury duty in the summer months.
3:22:34 PM
Representative Edgmon stated that in Dillingham the jury
pool extended to multiple communities. He explained that
the smaller communities would not have the ability to draw
from one small community alone.
Representative Holmes wondered whether the employee was
excused from jury duty or deferred until a summer break.
Co-Chair Stoltze expressed an issue with "picking a
profession." He stated that other professions do not get
paid for their time off like teachers do.
3:25:01 PM
Representative Wilson acknowledged that the smaller school
districts operated without substitute teachers. She shared
the sentiment and question of Representative Holmes
regarding a deferral of service for teachers.
3:26:04 PM
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that the amendment
was directed to the school term. He noted that he was
regularly called for jury duty. He believed that the
amendment was clear and simple allowing teachers to
structure time off around jury duty.
3:27:25 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, responded to Representative Holmes' question. He
stated that jury duty was generally deferred to the summer
periods for those teachers once exempted.
Representative Holmes clarified that the amendment did not
excuse the jury duty service for teachers; it simply
deferred it to the summer period.
Mr. Wooliver replied yes.
Representative Gara pointed out that other professions were
excused from jury service as well.
3:28:43 PM
Representative Edgmon asked if the judge could allow a
deferral for a teacher in a high-performing school as well.
Mr. Wooliver responded that a teacher always had the
ability to request a deferral.
3:29:30 PM
Representative Holmes understood the intent of the
amendment. She was on jury duty deferral herself, which she
understood was the right of every Alaskan citizen.
3:30:34 PM
Mr. Wooliver replied that portions of the state required
serving on jury duty for one full year. In those
circumstances, the law allowed the teacher an exemption
from serving on trials that arose during the school year.
Those teachers would continue to be subject to summertime
trials.
Co-Chair Stoltze joked that juries were filled with people
that were not smart enough to avoid jury duty. He deemed it
short-sighted to take the best and the brightest (teachers)
out of the jury pool.
3:31:58 PM
Representative Gara stated that the teachers would remain
in the jury pool outside of the school term.
3:32:25 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Holmes, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon,
Gara, Stoltze
OPPOSED: Munoz, Stoltze
The MOTION PASSED (6/2).
Amendment 14 was adopted.
3:33:46 PM
AT EASE
4:36:57 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Holmes MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 19, 28-
GH2716\G.23, Gardner/Mischel, 4/2/14 by Representative
Holmes (copy on file):
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "22 - 24,"
Page 34, line 21, following "19,":
Insert "22 - 24,"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Holmes discussed the amendment. She noted
that the bill's tenure provisions had an immediate
effective date. The amendment moved the effective date of
the tenure provisions from the immediate effective date
section into a section taking effect July 1, 2015, which
would allow school districts time for the transition.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that an effective date of July 1,
2014 would provide a better compromise for the provision.
Representative Wilson added that procedures would not
change, so the additional time was unnecessary.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that seven school districts were
addressed.
Representative Holmes agreed that the removal of the
provision allowing for district adaptation to the
subsequent five year alleviated the majority of her
concern. She proposed a compromise.
Representative Holmes MOVED to AMEND Amendment 19 by adding
July 1, 2014 as the effective date for the tenure sections.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. The amendment
as amended was before the committee.
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He noted that
multiple committee members voted against the tenure
provisions in the proposed legislation. He opined that the
additional time would be advantageous for the process and
transition. He then removed his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 19, as
amended with the July 1, 2014 effective date was ADOPTED by
the committee.
4:41:17 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13, by
Representative Gara and Representative Guttenberg, (copy on
file).
Page 34, lines 14-17:
Delete all material
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara MOVED to AMEND Amendment 13. He
requested a change from lines 14-17 to lines 12 - 17. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. The amendment to
Amendment 13 was adopted. Amendment 13 as amended was
before the committee.
4:43:00 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated that the three lines
comprising Amendment 13 allowed the Department of
Administration to implement salary and benefits for school
districts. He believed that salaries and benefits ought to
remain local options that school districts could discern
independently. His rural districts stressed the ability to
attract and obtain school employees. He discussed the
process initiated in the proposed legislation where the
legislature would determine the salaries and benefits for
districts statewide.
Representative Guttenberg compared the proposal in the CS
to federal overreach. He opined that legislators in Juneau
would not make the best decisions for the smaller rural
districts. Removing the section, as proposed in the
amendment would allow the districts to make their own
decisions about matters such as salaries and benefits.
4:46:50 PM
Representative Costello stated that the legislation
requested a written proposal from school districts. She
highlighted the problem of rising costs in the state
operating budget, with the target of zero percent increase.
She spoke about education as one of the major cost drivers
in the state budget. She thought that the section included
in the legislation was a responsible measure requesting a
simple proposal for legislative consideration of the
highest drivers of state cost. She opined that the
oversight would be prudent and responsible. She added that
the legislation, as written would consume 28 percent of the
state's reserves in the next ten years. She pointed out
that the legislature had a great responsibility to address
the costs. She preferred to address the cost of healthcare
rather than cut teacher positions each year. She would vote
against the amendment because she felt that the written
proposal would allow the legislature to discern proper
spending for school districts.
4:49:51 PM
Representative Wilson discussed the geographic differential
determined in last year's session that allowed different
areas of the state to best determine salaries and benefits.
She mentioned the process with the union that increased
costs for employees forcing districts to lay-off teachers.
She believed that the section in question would allow the
legislature to receive information from the Department of
Administration regarding cost drivers. She believed that
the districts were at a disadvantage because of their
dependence on state funds.
4:52:57 PM
Representative Gara discussed the oversight leading to a
potential teacher salary that would limit teacher salaries
to the point that the state would not attract the best and
brightest teachers to Alaska. He stated that inadequate
salaries and funding was the recipe for disaster. He
discussed Representative Wilson's comment regarding the
requested 2 percent increase. He noted that the inability
to provide a 2 percent increase for teachers sent the
message to teachers that their salaries would not keep pace
with inflation. He stressed that school districts should be
allowed the power and authority to hire transformational
teachers and principals. He stressed that a 2 percent
increase for teachers was more than acceptable.
4:55:38 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated that the superintendents
and finance directors might not have realized that the
legislature would address their salaries as well, since the
review would include all areas of the legislature. He
suggested that the report would not define a teacher or
principal's performance. He stated that the legislation
would allow state intrusion into districts across the
state. He added that some areas of his district were far
removed from the legislative process in Juneau.
5:01:26 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the amendment would
eliminate language initiating a salary and schedule study.
The highlighted schedule would be implemented in two years
with the approval of a future legislature.
Representative Guttenberg concurred.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Wilson, Costello, Edgmon, Holmes, Munoz, Neuman,
Thompson, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (2/8).
5:02:44 PM
AT EASE
5:04:05 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 12, 28-
GH2716\G.9, Mischel, 4/1/14 by Representative Gara and
Representative Guttenberg (copy on file):
Page 22, line 27:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Page 23, line 3:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Page 24, line 11:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Page 25, line 20:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Page 25, line 27:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Page 27, line 4:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Page 28, line 13:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Page 28, line 20:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Page 29, line 28:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Page 31, line 7:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Page 31, line 14:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Page 32, line 23:
Delete "or private nonprofit"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara discussed the amendment. He pointed out
an active system allowing companies to reduce tax payments
to the state by offering the reduced payment to an
educational institution. In the past, the funding was
routed to public schools, but the proposed legislation
allowed private nonprofit schools to receive the same
funding. He disagreed with state funds routed to private
schools. He noted that the constitution barred state
funding supporting private and religious schools.
Co-Chair Stoltze supported the original language in the
bill because he interpreted a buffer of state resources. He
believed that the amendment's intent spoke volumes about
the values of the sponsors regarding tax credits in the
state.
Representative Thompson supported the original language. He
pointed out that the governor's performance scholarship was
available for private schools and he saw the legislation
similarly. He would vote against the amendment.
5:08:40 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman discussed the importance of vocational
education programs in the schools. He appreciated the
original language in the CS and would vote against the
amendment.
5:10:22 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze apologized that he was so passionate about
the issue. He promised to have a calmer disposition for the
remainder of the deliberations.
5:10:50 PM
Representative Costello stated that the committee typically
discussed tax credit proposals in detail. She believed that
the tax credit portion of the bill provided a strong
element. She encouraged activities funded with means
alternate to public education dollars. She mentioned the
inclusion of science technology, engineering and math in
the section discussed. She believed that the tax credits
would drive dollars into areas that would allow students to
take advantage of exciting opportunities. She felt that the
identification of private non-profit added a strengthening
measure to the bill. She stated that she would vote against
the amendment.
5:12:34 PM
Representative Guttenberg appreciated the chair's passion.
He stated that he attended a religious school for five
years and his parents did not expect the state to pay
tuition. He supported tax credits for vocational schools.
He expressed concern with the broad nature of the
identification of private non-profit, which might lead to a
voucher system for the state education system.
5:14:19 PM
Representative Gara apologized to Representative Wilson for
his animated nature.
Co-Chair Stoltze commented that the finance committee was
similar to a family.
Representative Gara stated that he would be less worried
about the amendment if the state had ample reserves. If tax
revenue was diverted from both the general fund and from
public schools to religious and private schools, further
underfunding of public education would result. He stressed
that the bill, as written assumed no state deficit. He
disagreed with the funding of private schools during a time
of budget constraints.
5:16:57 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Costello, Edgmon, Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson,
Wilson, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (2/8).
5:17:54 PM
Representative Holmes MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 20, 28-
GH2716\G.22, Gardner/Mischel, 4/2/14 by Representative
Holmes, (copy on file):
Page 14, line 21:
Delete "$5,865"
Insert "$5,965"
Page 14, lines 24 - 25:
Delete "$5,923 [$5,865]"
Insert "$6,065 [$5,965]"
Page 14, lines 27 - 28:
Delete "$5,981 [$5,923]"
Insert "$6,165 [$6,065]"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Holmes discussed the Base Student Allocation
(BSA) increase. She noted that the amendment would add an
additional $100 for years one and two.
5:20:08 PM
Representative Gara discussed the claim that the bill
proposed a $185 Base Student Allocation (BSA) increase. He
noted that $25 million would be eliminated from the budget
allowing for an $85 BSA. The amendment would reestablish
the $185 BSA increase. He cited the numbers provided by the
Legislative Finance Division's interactive charts, and the
various state areas' increases and deficits. He planned to
vote for any proposed increase to the education budget. He
acknowledged that the amendment would not move schools
forward. He detailed the various state districts' financial
responses to the increase. He opined that the amendment
improved the bill, although the increases would result in
cuts overall. He stressed that the legislature could make
education a greater priority.
5:23:57 PM
Representative Costello expressed concern that the progress
achieved in the bill would be negated by the amendment. She
mentioned the other body's proposal of one-time funding
equivalent to a BSA increase greater than that proposed in
the CS. She wondered if communities wanted one-time funding
that exceeded the proposal in the CS or the security of
funding an increased BSA. She stated that the CS increase
equated to a $120 BSA increase for the majority of students
in Alaskan schools. She added that some districts preferred
no BSA increase. She wished to retain the intent of the CS
and would vote against the amendment.
Representative Munoz spoke in favor of the amendment. She
believed that the amendment compensated for the elimination
of the $25 million in one-time funding.
5:27:33 PM
Representative Wilson commented on Representative Gara's
interest in Fairbanks.
Representative Gara responded that he represented the
entire state.
Representative Wilson discussed the reality of the state's
restricted budget. She proposed that the committee wait one
year to evaluate the bill's success. She wondered if the
districts might learn that diminishing federal funds also
contributed to school district shortfalls. She expressed
discomfort with the amendment and the lack of concrete
expectation of state spending. She wished to converse about
changes made statewide rather than focusing on separate
districts.
5:31:08 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the CS, as written would soon
comprise 28.2 of the state's total savings over the next
decade. He referenced the funding added to the BSA and the
popularity of base increases. He pointed out the
compounding effect of the increases to the base. He
mentioned the bracketing improvements made in the bill
which would be diminished by raising the BSA.
5:35:36 PM
Representative Holmes thanked the chair for the latitude to
introduce the amendment at the late hour. She deliberated
thoroughly during the process of drafting the amendment.
She appreciated the discussion and the CS, but she would
like to see the committee increase the BSA.
5:36:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Holmes, Munoz
OPPOSED: Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (5/5).
5:38:17 PM
AT EASE
5:52:09 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 18, 28-
GH2716\G.8, Mischel, 4/1/14 by Representative Gara, (copy
on file):
Page 14, line 21:
Delete "$5,865"
Insert "$6,084"
Page 14, lines 24 - 25:
Delete "$5,923 [$5,865]"
Insert "$6,334 [$6,084]"
Page 14, lines 27 - 28:
Delete "$5,981 [$5,923]"
Insert "$6,584 [$6,334]"
Page 14, following line 28:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 21. AS 14.17.470 is amended to read:
Sec. 14.17.470. Base student allocation. The base
student allocation is $6,184 [$5,680].
* Sec. 22. AS 14.17.470, as amended by sec. 21 of
this Act, is amended to read:
Sec. 14.17.470. Base student allocation. The base
student allocation is $6,434 [$6,184].
* Sec. 23. AS 14.17.470, as amended by secs. 21 and
22 of this Act, is amended to read:
Sec. 14.17.470. Base student allocation. The base
student allocation is $6,684 [$6,434]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 33, line 29:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24"
Insert "Sections 25 - 27"
Page 33, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "secs. 22 - 24"
Insert "secs. 25 - 27"
Page 34, following line 17:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 57. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONTINGENT EFFECT. (a) Sections 18 - 20 of this Act
take effect only if the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature passes an appropriation bill that becomes
law that appropriates at least $25,000,000 to the
Department of Education and Early Development for
funding public education as state aid to districts
according to the average daily membership for each
district adjusted under AS 14.17.410(b)(1), in
addition to K-12 support provided under the foundation
program.
(b) Sections 21 - 23 of this Act take effect only if
the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature fails to
pass an appropriation bill that becomes law that
appropriates at least $25,000,000 to the Department of
Education and Early Development for funding public
education as state aid to districts according to the
average daily membership for each district adjusted
under AS 14.17.410(b)(1), in addition to K-12 support
provided under the foundation program.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24, 28, 50, and 52"
Insert "Sections 25 - 27, 31, 53, and 55"
Page 34, line 20:
Delete "25, 27, and 33 - 35"
Insert "28, 30, and 36 - 38"
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "19, and 29 - 31"
Insert "and 32 - 34"
Page 34, line 22:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "Sections 37, 40, 43, and 46"
Insert "Sections 40, 43, 46, and 49"
Page 34, following line 23:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 62. If sec. 18 of this Act takes effect,
it takes effect July 1, 2014.
* Sec. 63. If sec. 19 of this Act takes effect, it
takes effect July 1, 2015.
* Sec. 64. If sec. 20 of this Act takes effect, it
takes effect July 1, 2016.
* Sec. 65. If sec. 21 of this Act takes effect, it
takes effect July 1, 2014.
* Sec. 66. If sec. 22 of this Act takes effect, it
takes effect July 1, 2015.
* Sec. 67. If sec. 23 of this Act takes effect, it
takes effect July 1, 2016."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "secs. 54 - 58"
Insert "secs. 58 - 67"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment retained
the $25 million in the budget and added $404 BSA to current
law in year one with an additional $200 BSA added in both
year two and three. Evidence suggested that a teacher must
teach to the individual, while the common ratio was 35
students to one teacher. He compared crowd control to
education in classrooms with many students. He stressed
that Alaska had failed to raise the BSA since 2011. He
spoke about the schools suffering from layoffs as a result.
Representative Gara explained that the amendment would
provide every district in the state ample funds to avoid
future cuts and rehire some of the staff lost over the last
three years. The amendment would provide money in the out
years to prevent cuts. He ranked the prevention of further
cuts to education above many of the state's proposed
megaprojects. He encouraged care with state spending. He
suggested that families would leave Alaska unless the
legislature approved increased education funding.
Representative Gara understood the gravity of the proposed
request, but he encouraged legislators to reprioritize. He
believed that the state required an educational system that
reduced class sizes.
5:59:25 PM
Representative Wilson argued that education funding was
increased recently, but the BSA was the last number in the
multiplier. She pointed out that $2.4 billion was spent
last year on education. She stressed that while the BSA
remained the same, education funding was appropriated in
various areas of the budget. She stated that the
diminishment of students in some areas resulted in flat
spending. She proposed transparency about state spending
for constituent purposes. She stated that she would vote
against the amendment.
6:03:00 PM
Representative Guttenberg discussed the need to place
funding into the classroom. One-time funding did not
accomplish the task. Increasing the BSA would allow the
money to be used in the classroom.
6:04:17 PM
Representative Gara acknowledged that the legislature
approved recent increases to education related to the
state's unfunded liability. He pointed out the loss of over
600 teachers, guidance counselors, nurses and career
counselors. The layoffs outpaced the loss in student counts
over the last three years. He noted that the student count
remained relatively stable over the last three years. He
pointed out that one-time funding did not equal an
increase.
6:08:12 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello,
Edgmon, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (2/8).
6:09:25 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that Amendment 21 replaced
Amendment 7.
Representative Edgmon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 21, 28-
GH2716\G.24, Bannister/Mischel, 4/2/14 by Representative
Edgmon, Representative Gara and Representative Guttenberg
(copy on file):
Page 14, line 13:
Delete "1.62"
Insert "1.86 [1.62]"
Page 14, line 14:
Delete "55.8"
Insert "57.2 [55.8]"
Delete "1.49"
Insert "1.71 [1.49]"
Page 14, line 15:
Delete "122.5"
Insert "135.15 [122.5]"
Delete "1.27"
Insert "1.46 [1.27]"
Page 14, line 16:
Delete "218.1"
Insert "244.65 [218.1]"
Delete "1.08"
Insert "1.24 [1.08]"
Page 14, line 17:
Delete "or over [- 400]
Insert "- 400"
Delete "326.1"
Insert "368.65 [326.1]"
Delete "0.97"
Insert "1.12 [0.97]"
Page 14, line 18:
Delete "["
Delete "471.6"
Insert "528.65 [471.6]"
Delete "0.92"
Insert "1.06 [0.92]"
Page 14, line 19:
Delete "OR OVER"
Insert "or over"
Delete "793.6"
Insert "899.65 [793.6]"
Delete "0.84"
Insert "0.97 [0.84]"
Delete "]"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Edgmon discussed the amendment. The
amendment proposed a change on page 14, section 17 of the
CS. The change equalized the multiplier effect of the
formula. He was not confident in the outcome of the
amendment. He thought that the issue would reverberate
outside of the committee hearing. He supported additional
funding for larger schools. He expressed appreciation for
the BSA increase in the bill. He was bothered by the issue
of breaking down the bill and its innocuous numbers in
section 17. Without the amendment, $13.5 million would be
added, of which the largest amount would go to the three
largest schools. He disputed the argument that the smaller,
more remote schools did not require the additional funding.
He asserted that the smaller schools had even greater
funding needs. He acknowledged that families were
gravitating to less expensive parts of the state. He
understood the fiscal situation faced by the state, but he
argued the need for equality for rural Alaskan schools. The
amendment would help correct the disparity.
6:16:26 PM
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that the purpose of
adjustment factors was to level the playing field between
the urban and rural districts. He appreciated the high
cost-of-living in rural Alaska that made adjustments
necessary. He appreciated the effort to level the playing
field and supported the amendment.
Representative Munoz appreciated the testimony. She asked
for an estimate of the fiscal implications of the
amendment.
6:18:28 PM
MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, stated that the amendment changed the
number in the multiplier as well as the base. He expressed
difficulty estimating a cost without a count of rural
schools affected.
ELIZABETH NUDELMAN, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL FINANCES AND
FACILITIES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT,
provided educated speculation. She stated that she reviewed
Amendment 7 and found a cost increase of $25 million to $30
million range.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the estimation was greater than
the change from single bracketing.
Ms. Nudelman replied that the CS had a school-size change
reflected at $13 million. She reviewed Amendment 7, which
she believed increased the change to $25 million to $30
million range.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the estimate was in addition to
the CS proposal.
Ms. Nudelman replied yes.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested Ms. Nudelman's speculation for
Amendment 21.
Ms. Nudelman replied that the estimate might be the same
for both amendments.
Representative Munoz asked if the amendment would revert
back to the original formula with new adjustments.
Commissioner Hanley concurred. He noted that page 2, of
Amendment 21 reinstated the original formula.
Representative Munoz asked if the net impact was
approximately $25 to $30 million.
Ms. Nudelman expressed discomfort providing further
information.
Representative Munoz asked if the $13 million was no longer
a factor with the readjustment to original language using
the amendment.
Co-Chair Stoltze understood that the $25 to $30 million was
added to the original $13 million.
6:23:27 PM
Ms. Nudelman stated that the current size chart in statute
displayed the $400 - $750 at 0.92. The amendment changed
the $400 - $750 to 1.06, which appeared to increase the
last two components.
Co-Chair Stoltze heard two conflicting statements. He asked
if Amendment 21 provided $25 - $30 million in addition to
the $13 million.
Ms. Nudelman concurred that her best estimation added $25 -
$39 million to the $13 million already in the CS.
Co-Chair Stoltze wished to receive the correct estimates
for the record.
6:25:00 PM
Representative Wilson noticed that the multipliers were
used per school rather than per district. She sympathized
with the amendment sponsor and the difficulty arriving at a
place of equality for rural and urban schools. She
apologized that she could not support the amendment. She
stated that she would require a fiscal note to determine
the exact impact of the amendment before she could support
the change.
6:28:25 PM
Representative Munoz wondered about focusing on the smaller
schools with the amendment. She recalled that the removal
of the upper categories increased the funding to the larger
schools and she wondered if a similar change might allow
the same for the smaller schools.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that the $13 million covered 80
percent of students.
6:29:51 PM
Representative Costello clarified that a school with 30
students counted the students as $55.8 in terms of the BSA.
Additional students from 30 to 75 were multiplied by 1.49.
Ms. Nudelman replied yes. The table's size was increased by
the base and a multiplier for the number of students above
the base with the school size adjusted. Daily membership
continued to run through the formula.
6:31:15 PM
Representative Costello asked if the column under base
would change with the amendment.
Ms. Nudelman assumed that base was reset to reflect the
higher increment in the multiplier allowing the calculation
to be addressed in the same manner as in current statute.
6:31:54 PM
Representative Costello asked if the base column would
change with the adoption of the amendment.
Ms. Nudelman replied yes. The amendment proposed 57.2
leading to a change in the base.
Representative Costello appreciated the amendment. She
wished to see the detailed fiscal impact.
6:32:48 PM
Representative Gara noted that his district received more
than their share under the amendment. He expressed
willingness to remove the aspect of the amendment allowing
the larger schools to receive more than their share. He
supported the amendment.
6:34:17 PM
Representative Edgmon appreciated the discussion. He
discussed the age-old argument that dollars cycle in the
local communities eventually affects the economy of
Southcentral Alaska. He stated that schools in bush Alaska
were atrophying. He quoted a letter from a Bristol Bay
Borough district regarding the drastic changes made because
of diminishing funds including elimination of the art and
music teacher, nurses and a full-time physical education
teacher. He admitted that enrollment was declining in the
district, but if the costs were more favorable, the
population would stabilize. He stressed the difficulty of
living in the bush. He was unsatisfied with the bill
although he did support the increases for larger schools.
He recognized the sensitivity of the subject.
6:37:26 PM
Representative Edgmon WITHDREW Amendment 21.
Representative Munoz wished to work with Representative
Edgmon to achieve a similar goal.
Representative Edgmon appreciated the gesture.
6:38:13 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8, 28-
GH2716\G.17, Mischel, 4/1/14 by Representative Gara and
Representative Guttenberg, (copy on file):
Page 14, following line 28:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 21. AS 14.17 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 14.17.475. Charter school facility cost
adjustment. In addition to other money available
under AS 14.03.260(a), if a charter school operates in
a facility that requires a lease payment, the
department shall pay to a charter school established
under AS 14.03.250 a facility cost adjustment in the
amount of 10 percent of the base student allocation
under AS 14.17.470, multiplied by the number of
students enrolled in the charter school."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 33, line 29:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24"
Insert "Sections 23 - 25"
Page 33, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "secs. 22 - 24"
Insert "secs. 23 - 25"
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24, 28, 50, and 52"
Insert "Sections 23 - 25, 29, 51, and 53"
Page 34, line 20:
Delete "25, 27, and 33 - 35"
Insert "26, 28, and 34 - 36"
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "29 - 31"
Insert "30 - 32"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "Sections 37, 40, 43, and 46"
Insert "Sections 38, 41, 44, and 47"
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "secs. 54 - 58"
Insert "secs. 55 - 59"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara noted that charter schools lacked state
funding for major school construction. A portion of a
charter school student's BSA was allocated toward rent of
the facility. Amendment 8 allowed charter schools a 10
percent increase above the BSA for every student to help
defray the lease cost. The amendment would allow equity for
charter school students.
6:40:58 PM
Representative Wilson understood that the CS allowed school
districts to lease buildings to charter schools. She
wondered if a charter school leasing from a school district
would qualify for the 10 percent increase.
Representative Gara asked for further details.
Representative Wilson replied that a charter school in her
district rented a building from the school district. The
school district maintained the building, so she wondered
whether the school was eligible for the 10 percent
increase.
Representative Gara replied that the increase proposed in
the amendment would apply to the charter school in
question. He pointed out that a traditional public school
did not utilize a portion of their BSA to cover the lease
payment. The 10 percent BSA increase would cover the cost
of the lease for a charter school regardless of the rental
arrangement.
Representative Wilson asked how many students were enrolled
in charter schools.
6:43:44 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he worked on a similar issue
with the Mat-Su Valley Delegation as a fan of charter
schools. He recognized that charter schools had bipartisan
support with many leaders seeking solutions to the lease
issue. He stated that he would vote against the amendment,
while continuing to seek a lasting solution.
6:47:04 PM
Representative Holmes discussed a charter school that was
relocated from her district. She felt that the issue was
important. She expressed concern about amendment's language
and would vote against the amendment.
6:48:13 PM
Representative Gara appreciated that the committee had
similar goals. He acknowledged that the 10 percent increase
might be too much.
6:49:02 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to AMEND Amendment 8 on page 1,
line 7, with a change from 10 percent to 4 percent of the
BSA.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED and shared a story about a
charter school seeking a greenhouse. He WITHDREW his
OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Amendment 8 as amended was before the committee.
Representative Gara stated that a charter school with 200
students with the 4 percent BSA increase would receive
approximately $4500 to lease their space. He pointed out
that the lease cost for his restaurant was approximately
$10 thousand per month. He argued that $4500 would not
compromise an Alaskan charter school. He understood the
caution, because with a 10 percent increase some charter
schools might have been tempted to overspend.
Co-Chair Stoltze could not verify the number, but the 10
percent increase created a $2.9 million fiscal note.
Representative Gara explained his calculations and stressed
that overspending would not be encouraged by the increase.
He expressed his commitment to reduce the lease costs for
charter schools in the state.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Munoz, Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon,
Holmes, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (2/8).
6:53:06 PM
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 9, 28-
GH2716\G.16, Mischel, 4/1/14 by Representative Gara and
Representative Guttenberg (copy on file):
Page 7, following line 23:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 9. AS 14.03 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 14.03.263. Charter school grant program. (a) A
charter school that is established on or after the
effective date of this section may receive a one-time
grant from the department equal to the amount of $500
for each student enrolled in the school on October 1
of the first year in which the school applies for the
grant. The charter school shall use a grant received
under this section to provide educational services. In
this subsection, "educational services" includes
curriculum development, program development, and
special education services.
(b) The department shall establish by regulation
procedures for the application for and expenditure of
grant funds under (a) of this section.
(c) If the amount appropriated in a fiscal year for
the charter school grant program is insufficient to
meet the amounts authorized under (a) of this section,
the department shall reduce pro rata the per pupil
grant amount by the necessary percentage as determined
by the department. If a charter school grant is
reduced under this subsection, the charter school may
apply to the department in a subsequent fiscal year
for the balance of the grant amount."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 14, line 23:
Delete "sec. 18"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 14, line 26:
Delete "secs. 18 and 19"
Insert "secs. 19 and 20"
Page 33, line 29:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24"
Insert "Sections 23 - 25"
Page 33, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "secs. 22 - 24"
Insert "secs. 23 - 25"
Page 34, line 18:
Delete "Sections 22 - 24, 28, 50, and 52"
Insert "Sections 23 - 25, 29, 51, and 53"
Page 34, line 20:
Delete "Sections 16, 25, 27, and 33 - 35"
Insert "Sections 17, 26, 28, and 34 - 36"
Page 34, line 21:
Delete "19, and 29 - 31"
Insert "20, and 30 - 32"
Page 34, line 22:
Delete "Section 20"
Insert "Section 21"
Page 34, line 23:
Delete "Sections 37, 40, 43, and 46"
Insert "Sections 38, 41, 44, and 47"
Page 34, line 24:
Delete "secs. 54 - 58"
Insert "secs. 55 - 59"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg explained the amendment's intent
to aid charter schools with start-up expenses. The
amendment would allow a $500 allocation for each charter
school's education services at the inception of the school.
The money would provide a mechanism to assist the charter
schools in their success.
Representative Munoz supported the amendment. She stated
that she was one founder of the Juneau Community Charter
School. She recalled reception of a one-time federal grant
for the school's set-up costs.
Representative Guttenberg concurred that the federal grant
program served a similar need from 1996-2007.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Edgmon, Gara, Guttenberg, Holmes, Munoz
OPPOSED: Wilson, Costello, Neuman, Stoltze
The MOTION PASSED (6/4).
6:58:29 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 11, 28-
GH2716\G.14, Nauman/Mischel, 4/1/14 by Representative Gara
and Representative Guttenberg, (copy on file):
Page 14, line 21, following "$5,865":
Insert "plus, in a school district where the student-
to-teacher ratio has increased by more than half a
student between the academic year ending in 2012 and
the academic year ending in 2014, $50"
Page 14, line 25, following "[$5,865]":
Insert "plus, in a school district where the student-
to-teacher ratio has increased by more than half a
student between the academic year ending in 2012 and
the academic year ending in 2014, $50"
Page 14, line 28, following "[$5,923]":
Insert "plus, in a school district where the student-
to-teacher ratio has increased by more than half a
student between the academic year ending in 2012 and
the academic year ending in 2014, $50"
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara discussed the amendment. The amendment
granted an additional $50 BSA increase to schools with
increasing class sizes for the following three years. He
mentioned that many state districts experienced increasing
teacher/student ratios. He stated that the cost factor
would allow the mentioned schools to recuperate losses from
the last three years.
6:59:56 PM
Representative Wilson requested further information. She
stated that she did not support the amendment as another
creative method of raising the BSA.
7:01:38 PM
Representative Gara clarified that the funding would not
apply to every school district. He mentioned that some
school districts had cut back on curriculum, while some
district continued unscathed.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg
OPPOSED: Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Costello,
Edgmon, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (2/8).
7:03:49 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to RESCIND the committee's action
in adopting Amendment 6. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6.
Vice-Chair Neuman OBJECTED for discussion.
7:04:43 PM
Representative Gara noted that the state's own educational
standards were based on the Common Core Initiative's
standards. He understood that the amendment discouraged
Alaskan school standards that were based on Common Core
Initiative standards. The amendment would likely eliminate
the state's educational standards. He pointed out the lack
of definition of Common Core Initiative standards in the
amendment. He believed that the amendment incurred the
potential risk of losing the state's educational standards.
Representative Wilson assumed that Representative Gara was
speaking about lines 16-18. She disagreed that the state
would not be able to implement the Alaska state standards.
She understood that Alaska did not incur additional costs
as a result of the state standards.
Co-Chair Stoltze announced that he was a co-sponsor of
Amendment 6.
Representative Gara agreed with subsection (d), lines 8-12
of the amendment. He expressed concern with lines 17 and
18, which stated that the Department of Education and Early
Development could not reconstruct the state's own standards
because of the expense involved. He encouraged the sponsor
to discuss the matter with the commissioner before the
House Floor session addressing the legislation.
Vice-Chair Neuman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 6 was ADOPTED.
7:10:32 PM
AT EASE
7:17:20 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Costello discussed the 13 fiscal notes
accompanying the bill. The first from the Department of
Education and Early Development showed no fiscal impact.
The second fiscal note from Fund Transfers showing a fiscal
impact of $281,447,000 for FY 15 and $240,188,000 for FY
16, $245,059,000 for FY 17, $250,170,00 for FY 18,
$255,539,00 for FY 19 and $261,027,000 for FY 20.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated the audible impact of the
fiscal note in contrast to the figures debated during BSA
discussions.
7:19:01 PM
Representative Costello continued with the third fiscal
note from the Department of Education and Early Development
with a fiscal impact of $80 thousand in FY 15, which would
be amended to include $500 thousand. The remainder of the
fiscal note would also be amended.
Co-Chair Stoltze suggested a motion.
Representative Costello MOVED to AMEND fiscal note 3 to
reflect the passage of Amendment 9.
Representative Thompson opined that the figure was
excessive. He suspected that an indeterminate fiscal note
would be more applicable, since the number of aspiring
charter schools was unknown.
Representative Costello MOVED to AMEND fiscal note 3 to
reflect the true cost. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Representative Gara requested further information about the
first fiscal note.
Representative Costello discussed fiscal note 4 from
Department of Labor and Workforce Development with the
fiscal impact in FY 15 of zero and $5,533,100 included in
the governor's request. The proposed fiscal impact for FY
16 and FY 17 was $5,533,100, concluding with zero fiscal
impact in FY 18, FY 19 and FY 20. Fiscal note 5 from the
University of Alaska showed a fiscal impact of $8,381,300
for FY 15 with $5,431,800 included in the governor's
request. Fiscal years 16 through 20 anticipated
$13,813,100.
7:22:45 PM
Representative Costello continued with FN 6 from the
Department of Revenue showed zero fiscal impact. Fiscal
note 7 from the Department of Revenue showed no fiscal
impact. Fiscal note 8 from the Department of Education and
Early Development showed a fiscal impact of $1,301,000 for
FY 15 through FY 20.
7:23:51 PM
Representative Costello discussed FN 9 from the Department
of Education and Early Development and the impact of $177
thousand for FY 15 through FY 20.
Representative Costello discussed FN 10 from the Department
of Labor and Workforce Development showing a fiscal impact
of $156 thousand in FY 15 through FY 20.
Representative Costello discussed FN 11 from the
delineation Fund Transfers with a fiscal impact in FY 15 of
$100 million.
7:25:16 PM
Representative Costello discussed FN 12 from the State
Assistant to Retirement showing a fiscal impact in FY 15 of
$1.4 billion.
Representative Costello discussed the final fiscal note
from the Department of Administration showing a fiscal
impact of $610,600 for FY 15, a fiscal impact of $94,500
for FY 16 and zero fiscal impact in FY 17 through FY 20.
7:26:10 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about the analysis of FN 4. He
disagreed that 5 full-time positions were required to
manage 11 schools. He suspected that one full-time position
could manage the schools. He was assured by Commissioner
Blumer that the reporting requirements would not increase
costs.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested an amendment.
7:30:34 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED a conceptual AMENDMENT to fiscal
note 4. He suggested that the FY 15 appropriation request
reflect a negative $400 thousand, which would allow one
full-time personnel to administer 11 grants for
approximately $11 million.
Representative Holmes asked for the years impacted.
Vice-Chair Neuman replied that the change would include FY
15 through FY 17.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Gara pointed to page 2 of fiscal note 1. He
noted that the fiscal cost in column 3 was $59.8 million.
He noted that the total fiscal cost would be approximately
$34 to $36 million after removal of the $25 million.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that Representative Gara's comments
would be noted on the record.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that the fiscal notes would
continue to be adjusted throughout the process.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 278(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
7:34:20 PM
Representative Gara stated that if Co-Chair Austerman's
version of the distribution of $25 million through the BSA
came to pass, the bill would not meet the deficits of the
schools in the first year of the bill. He understood that
everyone worked very hard, but he expressed his concerns.
Co-Chair Stoltze thanked all of the members for their
patience during the process.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 278 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Education and Early Development, two new
fiscal notes from the House Finance Committee for Fund
Transfers, three new fiscal notes from the Department of
Education and Early Development, two new fiscal notes from
the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, one new
fiscal note from the University, one new indeterminate
fiscal note from the Department of Revenue, one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Revenue, one new fiscal
note from the Department of Administration, and one new
fiscal note from the House Finance Committee for State
Assistance to Retirement Funds.
Co-Chair Stoltze thanked Representative Munoz for forgoing
an important event celebrating a youth hockey development
clinic. He noted that he and Representative Munoz co-
sponsored the clinic.
Representative Munoz shared that approximately 70
participants enrolled in the successful clinic.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that it had been a treat for him to
help bring hockey to Juneau.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 278 CS Amendments.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS FIN Amendment 18 Gara.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS FIN G Fiscal Note Packet 4-2-14.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS FIN G Amendment 19 Holmes.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS FIN G Amendment Holmes 20.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS FIN G Amendment 21 Edgmon.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS FIN G Amendments with Actions.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 CS FIN Final Fiscal Note Packet.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 Letter G. Miller.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 Testimony Hutchison.pdf |
HFIN 4/2/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 278 |