Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/18/2013 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB120 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 120-PUPIL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
8:04:28 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 120 "An Act adjusting pupil transportation
funding; and providing for an effective date."
8:04:30 AM
ERICK CORDERO-GIORGANA, Staff, Representative Lynn Gattis,
Alaska State Legislature, stated the bill, HB 120, contains an
adjustment to the consumer price index (CPI) on pupil
transportation for school districts. The reason for the bill is
to ensure that school districts don't need to use instructional
funding for pupil transportation. Historically, the funding for
pupil transportation has been derived from funding outside the
instructional funding. In 2012, Senate Bill 182, [27th
Legislature], recalibrated the amount of funds school districts
received for pupil transportation. That bill included a CPI to
help ensure that school districts could cover the full amounts
of the contracts. However, the final version of the bill
reduced the annual CPI adjustment to a 1.5 percent inflationary
adjustment for 2014 and 2015. Thus funding would revert back to
a level requiring use of instructional funds to fund pupil
transportation. This bill would bring back the full adjustment
so school districts would not need to spend instructional funds
for pupil transportation.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA explained that Senate Bill 182 also
included language to allow the EED to help school districts. He
read proposed AS 14.09.010(d), as follows:
The department shall adopt regulations that provide
for oversight of and support to school districts in
achieving a safe and cost-effective student
transportation system. The regulations must include a
requirement for contract terms of not less than three
years, if feasible, standardized conditions and bid
periods, and standards that ensure cost efficiencies
and exclusions.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA said he reviewed the history of pupil
transportation and discovered that prior to 2004 the department
had a larger role. In 2004, individual school districts were
negotiating their contracts for pupil transportation but it
wasn't effective to do so. At the time, the Senate Education
committee included the language to allow the department to take
on a larger role and to ensure the pupil transportation
reimbursement program will pay, as intended, to safely transport
students between home and school.
8:07:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether school districts were
aware at the time they finalized the contracts that the
contracts did not include adjustments to the consumer price
index (CPI). She further asked why the school districts would
do so since it was not a state policy.
8:08:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS suggested this question should be held for
the school districts.
8:09:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that HB 120 puts in place an annual
increase, [the CPI], but the bill does not contain a sunset
provision. He questioned why a sunset review is not included in
the bill.
MR. CORDERO-GIORGANA answered that the school districts can come
forward with recommendations in 2016 and will promulgate
regulations. He understood the EED has hired a consultant to
survey the school districts to obtain their recommendations. In
the meantime, this bill could still help school districts until
the recommendations are finalized.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the recommendation could be
brought forward with a corresponding sunset date. He asked
whether that would be problematic for the bill.
8:11:09 AM
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), explained that the bill does not contain a
sunset provision, which would be a policy decision by the
legislature. She said the EED is amenable to a sunset
provision.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked when the review would be completed.
MS. NUDELMAN suggested that the department will work on this
issue over the summer and it would likely be several months
before the review would be available.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the recommendations are due
in 2016.
MS. NUDELMAN answered that there is not a specific due date but
many contracts span multiple years with the final term year in
2016. After 2016, many school districts will sign new multi-
year contracts.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON confirmed dates to be considered, that the
school districts would need to know by January 2016.
MS. NUDELMAN confirmed the date for the 2016 contract.
8:13:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND remarked that the Anchorage School
District (ASD) spent years coordinating their contracts in order
to achieve efficiencies. She asked whether the EED would
research the history of the funding, including using the
Anchorage system as a contract model.
MS. NUDELMAN responded that the EED will review and will work to
have the major contracts on the same cycle. She agreed that the
state has grappled with this in the past. She commented that
this is a good piece to consider in terms of restraining costs.
She suggested that historically there hasn't been any exact
cause and effect for reduced costs. Thus, the department will
consider multiple efforts, including aligning contracts,
considering other contract language, including items such as how
fuel is purchased in an attempt to achieve cost savings.
8:15:18 AM
DEENA PARAMO, Ed.D., Superintendent, Matanuska-Susitna Borough
School District (MSBSD), read a prepared statement, as follows:
I am testifying on behalf of the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough School District in support of House Bill 120,
an Act adjusting pupil transportation funding. Last
session Senate Bill 182, which has been referenced,
addressed pupil transportation funding for the fiscal
years 2013-2015. However, the year-to-year increases
established within this measure were based upon a
standardized increase of 1.5 percent for both fiscal
years 2014 and 2015. To our knowledge, there are no
current transportation contracts within the State of
Alaska that are limited to only a 1.5 percent increase
in their cost escalation language.
In actuality, the vast majority of contracts around
the state refer to the annual percent increase in the
Anchorage Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
(Anchorage CPI-U) as determined by the United States
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The
CPI-U has averaged 2.6 percent over the last six
years. This creates funding shortfalls that reduce
the amount of instructional dollars that can be spent
in the classroom. Using current language from [Senate
Bill 182], just to give you an example, the MSBSD is
preparing to subsidize transportation operations from
its general fund by approximately $1.5 million in FY
2014. This, in turn, will impact MSBSD's ability to
fund instructional programs and pay for teachers. In
fact, a $1.5 million shortfall is the equivalent of 15
teaching positions that would need to be reduced from
our general operating budget. While House Bill 120
will not erase the shortfall in its entirety, it will
serve to reduce the deficit by approximately $500,000.
DR. PARAMO then provided recent contract history for pupil
transportation that has been cost prohibitive. For example,
during the MSBSD's transportation contract process, when the
contract went out to bid only two responses were received and
the MSBSD took the lowest bid. However, the next higher bid was
for a $10 million increase over five years. Subsequently, the
MSBSD suggested to the EED that these contracts were too great
for individual school districts to negotiate. In summary,
school districts are joining together to align contractual
agreements for cost saving purposes. She concurred with
Representative Drummond that the MSBSD works to achieve contract
dates ending at the same time to potentially allow for statewide
bids in order to save money. She emphasized that school
districts cannot do this alone any more.
8:18:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON commented that the legislature is no
longer able to approve, fund, or sustain expenses that are tied
to the CPI due to declining oil revenues. She asked whether the
transportation contracts are union contracts.
DR. PARAMO answered it would depend on the individual school
district; however, the MSBSD's transportation contractor became
unionized through the Teamsters.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the MSBSD noticed any
difference in the negotiation process.
DR. PARAMO stated her belief that statute requires when a new
contract is bid that the actual employees' salaries are twice
the minimum wage. She offered to provide the statute reference.
She added that companies are not eager to provide transportation
in Alaska. The majority of the contracts are for 187 buses with
First Student Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related the legislature's frustration
since it has traditionally not tied these contracts to the CPI.
She asked for further clarification for the reason to have this
tied to the CPI.
DR. PARAMO answered that the CPI provision is an attempt to
achieve a transportation contract. She recalled the regulations
require the bus temperature must be maintained at 45 degrees.
Thus buses must be outfitted with additional heaters in Alaska.
She remarked that of course the school district wants the buses
to be warm. In some areas buses must be kept in heated garages
in order to maintain daytime temperatures to meet the
regulation. Thus individual school districts have some issues.
The MSBSD travels greater distances with fewer students than
Anchorage. In conclusion, the CPI component is to attract Lower
48 bus companies to provide transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON confirmed that contracts are from the
Lower 48.
DR. PARAMO answered that yes, the larger companies come from the
Lower 48. Alaska does not have a company large enough to
provide services. One company is out of England, which causes
some difficulties. She related that ASD uses Reliant, but
everyone else uses First Students, Inc. She understood that the
budgets are tight but individual school districts have lost the
ability to negotiate and have contracts end at the same time to
allow the whole state to negotiate a contract.
8:23:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the multi-year contracts
have a built in increase or if they are open ended.
DR. PARAMO answered that she believed they were based on the
CPI, although the ASD may base it on a set amount. She related
her understanding that the problem exists due to the tie to the
CPI
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON was unsure of the contract provisions.
CHAIR GATTIS recapped the question, which is if the bill passes
whether it would provide a raise to the bus companies.
8:26:23 AM
LUKE FULP, Chief Business Official, Business & Operations,
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD), answered no,
if the bill passes it would cover the current costs that the
school district has been experiencing. He reiterated that the
costs are true costs and the current contract runs through FY
2016. The increase in the contract each year is based on the
Anchorage CPI-U. Thus, the contract specifies the Anchorage
CPI-U and the MSBSD hopes the state funding contract will match
up.
8:27:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the MSBSD runs some of its
own district buses as well as contract buses.
DR. PARAMO answered that the MSBSD outsources all of its buses;
however, the contract is limited to home to school busing and
not for other programs.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND related the ASD had about one-third
school district owned buses and provided two-thirds service via
contracts, although she was uncertain if that has changed. She
stated that some school districts operate their own buses in
order to provide competition for contracts.
8:29:09 AM
TERRY SNYDER spoke in support of HB 120 paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
First I want to let you know that Dr. Deena Paramo and
Chief Business Officer Luke Fulp through their solid
leadership are good stewards of the MatSu School
District budget and of the state and taxpayer monies
for education. According to a chart in the March
meeting packet of the Alaska State Board of Education
the district although only required to meet a minimum
of 70 percent of its school operating expenditures in
the instructional component of the district budget
actually invests closer to 80 percent which is one of
the highest percentages in the state. If our school
district were an Alaskan business that made that kind
of monetary reinvestment in their business operations
we would consider it a phenomenal successful business
strategy. Well I would like to sing praises for our
district for doing just that by re-investing every
dollar they can in kids. The district has made some
painful cuts and great strides at efficiencies over
the past several years and they continue to look for
cost savings diligently. But they have always put kids
first.
Providing transportation to 40 plus schools over an
area the size of Scotland is a daunting task. Just to
get around the Big Lake area buses must travel over
roads that over 80% are substandard. Pure and simple
transportation is challenging and expensive.
Passage of House Bill 120 will allow the Mat Su School
District to put approximately $500,000 back into the
classroom and toward everyone's goal of successful
outcomes for students our future workforce.
I would like to thank Valley Representative Gattis for
sponsoring the bill. I look forward to the passage of
HB 120 out of committee and your continued common
sense financial support for obligations to our public
educational system. Thank you for allowing my
testimony and your service to the committee and state.
8:31:21 AM
DAVE JONES, Assistant Superintendent of Operations, Kenai
Peninsula Borough School District (KPBSD), spoke in support of
HB 120. He said that Senate Bill 182, enacted last year,
provided significant relief to the KPBSD. The KPBSD was at the
point of subsidizing a little over $2 million from the general
fund annually for pupil transportation prior to passage of the
bill. He stated the KPBSD's contracts were tied to the
Anchorage CPI in its contract; however, if the 1.5 percent CPI
adjustment in the bill falls below the Anchorage CPI-U that
amount would come from general classroom funding. He offered
his understanding of how the CPI factor was introduced into the
contract, which was an effort to standardize contracts and
provide contract incentives. The goal was to attract multiple
vendors from out of state. Historically, single vendors have a
monopoly since the company set its own prices. The adjustment
to the CPI was added to all contracts to provide vendors with
the assurance that if they came to Alaska, they would be
compensated for inflation. He described prior KPBSD contracts
that did not contain an adjustment for the CPI, which were
heavily front-loaded. Ultimately, the contracts cost more
without the adjustment to the CPI.
8:34:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how accurate the Anchorage CPI-U
escalator is as an indication of transportation costs. He
understood that the CPI adjustment includes other factors, such
as housing costs and food, as well as fuel and space heating.
Again, he asked how accurate the Anchorage CPI-U adjustment is
in terms of bus costs.
MR. JONES answered that the KPBSD bids out the contract as a
separate contract. The current vendor is First Student, Inc.
and the company employs its drivers as employees. He
acknowledged that since wages are involved the cost increases
are not limited to fuel increases. Initially, the First
Students, Inc. drivers were not part of a union. Referring to a
previous comment that a school district might be able to operate
buses at a savings, he offered he spent considerable time last
year costing out the services. However, once the school
district operates the buses, it must also cover employee
salaries and benefit costs as well as bus operating costs.
Ultimately he found it would not be cheaper for the KPBSD to
offer pupil transportation.
8:37:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER wondered if the CPI escalator was part of
the formula whether any mechanism exists to create downward
pressure on the KPBSD's transportation costs.
MR. JONES answered that competition would likely arise with
multiple vendors, which has not historically happened. He hoped
the state would have more leverage by contracting with a multi-
national company on a single contract or by issuing multiple
contracts simultaneously. He thought this process could attract
multiple vendors.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what provision in the bill would
attract multiple bidders.
MR. JONES responded that Alaska currently has one vendor besides
the multi-national company in Anchorage. This bill would not
attract additional vendors on the existing contracts, but it
would be a vital aspect of the request for proposal (RFP)
process.
8:39:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how much flexibility the school
districts have in determining bus routes and the level of
service the district will provide.
MR. JONES said the contracts are negotiated to meet the level of
service the school district would like to offer. Typically, the
RFPs are based on existing routes, which are adjusted each
school term based on the number of students. He pointed out
Homer considered changing its service last year similar to the
Kenai process. This would have reduced the number of buses, but
it also affected the timeframe for students and teachers so
ultimately changes weren't made.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that the school districts have
some scheduling flexibility, but the overall cost is based on
the number of buses being used per day.
MR. JONES concurred.
8:42:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether there is any other means
to attract additional vendors.
MR. JONES reiterated his belief that having the state contract
on behalf of all school districts at one time will make a
difference. He suggested that bus companies would have an
opportunity to provide service in numerous communities, thus the
additional volume of services would be an incentive.
Additionally, facility arrangements such as providing bus barns
would be attractive. He suggested the state could build a bus
barn in each district and lease the facilities to contractors,
which would remove a major inhibitor.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed. She understood incentives
would exist if the state negotiated the contracts for
transportation and fuel, noting perhaps school districts could
also own their buses. She asked whether any vendors would lease
buildings if they were available.
MR. JONES answered that leasing the buildings could be one
aspect of the RFP.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND reported that one neighborhood in
Anchorage is adjacent to a bus lot so having a building would be
an improvement.
8:46:07 AM
DAVID MEANS, Director, Administrative Services, Juneau School
District (JSD), testified in support of HB 120. He said much of
the testimony today highlight the reasons that the JSD supports
the bill. He pointed out the JSD has a cost-of-living clause in
its contract based on the Anchorage CPI-U. He stated that as
this funding runs out the JSD will use instructional funding to
support pupil transportation.
8:47:03 AM
AMY LUJAN, Executive Director, Alaska Association of School
Business Officials (ALASBO), testified in support of HB 120.
She reiterated that the organization as a whole supports the
bill. The intent of Senate Bill 182 last year was to provide
additional pupil transportation funding so instructional funding
would not be used to support pupil transportation. Yet, if the
CPI adjustment is limited to 1.5 percent, instructional funds
would be used. He said using the Anchorage CPI-U adjustment was
an effort to standardize contracts.
8:48:16 AM
BRUCE JOHNSON, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA), testified in support of HB 120. He said
this issue is one that was discussed in a joint position
statement resolution that was developed collectively with the
business officials, superintendents, and principals. In 2006, a
task force brought up multi-year funding and added the CPI
inflationary protection for school districts since the districts
are required by law to offer pupil transportation.
8:49:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the clause is an adjustment
for Anchorage CPI-U for inflation or is it simply an increase.
MR. JOHNSON said he wasn't the best person to respond. However,
he suggested it would be another thing to consider so if
inflation didn't exist, it would fall back.
8:49:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for any suggestions to encourage
potential vendors.
MR. JOHNSON said the members would like to see an opportunity
for competition. It's expensive to operate and mobilize the bus
industry. He offered his belief that the larger scale RFP could
likely to yield the best, cost effective approach to pupil
transportation in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the construction of bus
barns would be helpful.
MR. JOHNSON suggested that the concept is very good and if it is
legal to do so could be built into the statewide bid for
providing pupil transportation.
8:51:32 AM
CHAIR GATTIS, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 120.
8:51:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2 of the fiscal note. He
asked whether the figures would double or be compounded in the
outer years.
MS. NUDELMAN explained that the fiscal note uses 2.5 percent as
an estimate of the annual CPI. She referred to the final column
of page 2 of the fiscal note, entitled "Annual Increase in State
Costs." She agreed that the increases are compounded. Thus if
the CPI were higher in a given year than the 2.5 percent
calculated at $1.9 million, then the cost would be increased.
8:53:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the effect if the impact is
limited to two years to allow the department and the school
districts to work out regulations and recommendations on how to
negotiate transportation deals. He restated his question on
whether any downside exists if it is limited to two years.
MS. NUDELMAN said she did not envision any immediate effect in
the next two years, given the CPI would be in effect and the
department would have information for additional discussions in
FY 2015-2016.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether it is her understanding
that if the CPI were to go down by a half or full percent then
the transportation costs via contract would also decrease.
MS. NUDELMAN responded that she didn't see the language to
decrease the amount. She suggested that perhaps the bill
sponsor could address that question.
8:54:38 AM
CHAIR GATTIS said she would not have any problem with an
increase or a decrease. She welcomed an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 1, line 5, which read, "
... shall be adjusted annually on October 1 according to changes
in the Consumer Price Index ...." He suggested that if it
fluctuates up or down it could be adjusted.
CHAIR GATTIS said she thought it addresses change.
8:55:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to the fiscal note and
expressed concern that the costs appear to be doubling each
year.
MS. NUDELMAN answered that there are two fiscal notes the way
the public education fund operates. One fiscal note has the
backup for the K-12 pupil transportation. The second fiscal
note places that money in the public education fund. She
referred to the calculation on page 2 of the pupil
transportation fund fiscal note. In the first year, since 1.5
percent increase is already in current law, the first year
increase is calculated at 1 percent or $ 0.7 million, which is
shown as the annual increase in state costs on page 2 of the
fiscal note from K-12 Support; Pupil Transportation allocation.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated his understanding of how the cost
is calculated. In current law, 1.5 percent exists, and raising
it 1 percent totals $0.7 million.
MS. NUDELMAN responded that in 2015 there is also an existing
1.5 percent increase, so the increase is $0.7 million; however,
since it compounds from one year to the next, the final amount
is $1.5 million. Thus, the public education funding compounds
from one year to the next since what is added into the base one
year remains there, but the CPI is increased the next year. She
then referred to FY 16, noting the increase is approximately $2
million so adding the totals from FY 14-FY 16 increases totals
$3.4 million, which is the cost of the CPI increases in FY 16.
To repeat this process for FY 17, the calculation would be $2.5
percent on the existing base and the cumulative total of $5.4
million. She explained that FY 18-FY 19 follow the same
methodology. She further explained that considering the 2.5
percent increase just by considering what was added to the base
each year, which is $2 million. The process is taking the $2
million, retaining it, and adding the CPI.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted the point is that this doesn't
remove funding from the classroom for pupil transportation.
8:59:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification that these are not
annual, but cumulative.
MS. NUDELMAN agreed that cumulative would be the correct heading
for that column, instead of "Annual Increase in State Costs."
9:00:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
add a Section 4 to provide a sunset date of January 1, 2016.
The purpose of the amendment is to avoid rolling in and rolling
out the program, thereby readdressing it each cycle.
9:01:30 AM
CHAIR GATTIS suggested checking with other contractors of pupil
transportation on the language.
9:02:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON restated the intent of Conceptual
Amendment 1. He explained that a sunset clause is being added
for January 1, 2016. This would mean future negotiations
wouldn't be "set in stone." He understood the desire is to have
a statewide contract, with the state being involved in multi-
school districts.
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether that January 1, 2016 is plausible and
if the date works.
MR. FULP responded that January 1, 2016 would get the MSBSD
through its contract. The CPI increase from year to year is
currently built into the contract terms. He said the sunset
would work with the current contract and the sunset time period
aligns appropriately for subsequent contracts.
CHAIR GATTIS asked whether another date is more appropriate.
MR. FULP answered the school fiscal year ends June 30 so June
30, 2016 would also work.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that it is better
aligned with the legislative session dates. The adjustment is
October 1. He suggested that it is important for the state and
the school districts to be aware of the situation. He pointed
out it wouldn't affect the bus routes on January 1, but would be
in place prior to contract negotiations. He suggested the date
could also be October 1, 2015 since the adjustment takes place
on that date.
9:07:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about the length of the
negotiation period, and whether it would be helpful to have the
counts in November.
MR. FULP agreed it would be better to have the sunset align with
the legislative session and January 1 or earlier would be
workable. He said the district would be involved in contract
negotiations nearly a year prior to the contract to work through
the bid process. It's helpful to work as far out as possible to
make sure the contract was in place with acceptable terms.
9:09:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked what date would be best.
MR. FULP deferred to Dr. Paramo.
DR. PARAMO said the date of November 1, 2015 would be good since
the pupil counts would be known.
9:10:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to amend Conceptual Amendment 1, to
change the sunset date to November 1, 2015.
MR. JONES agreed with the proposed date since the FY 16
escalator would be triggered on October 1. He suggested that
the November 1, 2015 date is acceptable. It would be a good
incentive for school districts to work together to solve the
problem and it would give the school districts and the
department an opportunity to consider the full spectrum for the
new contract.
CHAIR GATTIS said the intent is to help the school districts,
but also to align the contract.
9:11:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he is fundamentally leery of placing
inflation-proofing in an education funding formula. The
legislature needs flexibility to meet unforeseen circumstances
and having that formulaic inflation escalator eliminates that
flexibility there is no guarantee that the state's income will
rise by 2.5 percent each year. However he understood the
situation the sponsor is trying to address with the bill. He
said it would give the department an opportunity to let this go
forth, which is good. He stated his support for Conceptual
Amendment 1 and with the amendment, he can support the bill. He
cautioned against legislative finance considering this as
support for inflation-proofing for education.
9:12:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
CHAIR GATTIS said the committee agreed with November 1, 2015 as
the date the legislature could agree to sunset the proposed
statute and to readdress the issue at that time.
9:13:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:13:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON emphasized that the intent of HB 120 is
to allow the DEED to consider pupil transportation. First, the
state will work to negotiate the pupil transportation contracts.
Second, the state will attempt to obtain fuel contracts for
pupil transportation at a lower rate. Third, building
facilities or bus barns will be considered by the state or the
school districts to provide incentives. Finally, the school
districts will consider owning the buses. As the bill moves
forward, the legislature would need to consider funding for the
bus barns so the facilities will be available for contract
negotiations.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled a statutory requirement to have
the bus temperatures set at 45 degrees. He suggested that
perhaps this could also be considered as the measure moves
forward since the cost of maintaining a 40 degree bus and a 45
degree bus could have a significant financial impact.
9:16:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said that the Municipality of Anchorage
(MOA) has a mass transit bus barn. She recalled this facility
was built in the 1980s. She suggested this needs to be
considered carefully, based on community needs. She offered her
belief that the MOA would be delighted to have a bus barn. She
pointed out that there are contractor's buses and school
district's buses to consider.
9:17:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report HB 120, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, the CSHB
120(EDC) was reported from the House Education Standing
Committee.
9:18:13 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:18 a.m. to 9:21 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 12 HB 120 Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 13 HB 120 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 14 HB 120 Fiscal Note - EED-K12.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 15 HB 120 Fiscal Note - EED-PEF.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 16 HB 120 Backup - Leg Research History of Transportation of Pupils 2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 17 HB 120 Letter Support - Anchorage School District 2-28-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 18 HB 120 Letter Support - Saddler 2-27-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 19 HB 120 Letter Support - Kenai Peninsula Borough School Dist.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 20 HB 120 Letter Support - North Slope Borough 2-18-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 21 HB 120 Letter support - Fairbanks 2-22-2013.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 22 HB 120 Letter Support - MatSu 2-19-2013.PDF |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| 01 HB 133 Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 02 HB 133 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 03 HB 133 Sectional Summary.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 04 HB 133 ADMs and Full Values.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 05 HB 133 Kasayulie v. Alaska Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 06 HB 133 DEED FY14 School Construction Grant Fund List.pdf |
HEDC 3/11/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 07 HB 133 PowerPoint.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 08 HB 133 Fiscal Note - EED-FundTransfer-3-13-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 133 |
| 01 HB 151 Sponsor Statement v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 02 HB 151 v. A Bill Text.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 03 HB 151 Sectional v. A.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 04 HB 151 Fiscal Note v. A - EED-TLS-3-8-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 05 CS HB 151 ver. O.PDF |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 06 HB 151 Information Packet.pdf |
HEDC 3/15/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 07 CSHB 151 Fiscal Note - EED-TLS-3-14-13.pdf |
HEDC 3/18/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/20/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/22/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/25/2013 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/3/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |