Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/20/1993 08:40 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 82 An Act relating to school construction grants and major maintenance grants to school districts; providing for school district participation in the cost of school construction and major maintenance; creating a major maintenance grant fund; and providing for an effective date. CS HB 82 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Department of Education dated 1/22/93, the Department of Revenue dated 1/22/93 and the Department of Transportation and Public 1 Facilities dated 1/22/93. 3 HOUSE BILL 82 "An Act relating to school construction grants and major maintenance grants to school districts; providing for school district participation in the cost of school construction and major maintenance; creating a major maintenance grant fund; and providing for an effective date." DUANE GUILEY, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL FINANCE, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, explained the changes to the work draft #8-GH1047\K dated 4/18/93, CS HB 82 (FIN). Representative Brown asked if the funds included in the Governor's proposed version included more than just schools. Mr. Guiley stated that the purpose of the Major Maintenance Grant Fund described on Page 2, Line 10 and the School Construction Fund are funds which are to be used to receive an annual appropriation which is distributed from the priority list in order to fund grants for that current year. The new fund described in the legislation on Page 7 is basically a holding account within the general fund whereby appropriations can be made to that fund and then appropriated to the mentioned funds. Representative Brown asked if the first two funds would be limited to K - 12. Co-Chair MacLean stated they would. Co-Chair Larson asked the significance of the word "municipal" being added to Page 2, Line 22. Mr. Guiley replied that the full value of the ATM chart would begin at $1 dollar. REAA's would have a full value determination of zero. They would no longer be included in subsection (b). The full value of the ADM chart would refer only to municipal and borough districts. Co-Chair MacLean provided the Committee with a handout. [Attachment #1]. Page 2 lists capital improvement program budget requests and the percentage calculation for each area. Representative Martin noted his concern that the raw fish tax clarification should be considered in the calculation. Co-Chair MacLean pointed out that the Bristol Bay area was included in the 30% evaluation. Mr. Guiley noted that Subsection #E would limit the State funds which have been described as debt reimbursement or school construction grants. Other types of State funds could be used as match. (Tape Change, HFC 93-111, Side 1). 4 Mr. Guiley pointed out to the Committee that the measure used to determine the percentage paid incorporates the determination of real and personal property. There is no valuation of the REAA's. Representative Martin voiced his concern that the wealthy REAA community areas are not paying their share. Representative Therriault stated that the HESS version of the bill placed the local contribution up to 50% whereas the proposed work draft recommends 30% high local match. Co- Chair MacLean stated that the match could be increased. Co-Chair Larson MOVED that the version before the Committee be #8-GH1047\K dated 4/18/93. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Larson MOVED to increase the ADM to 35% for all those communities over $600 ADM. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair MacLean MOVED Amendment #1 [Attachment #1]. Representative Martin questioned which federal receipts would be in jeopardy by the proposed amendment. Mr. Guiley stated that impact aid funds, funds received at local taxation can only be considered once for determining state aid. The Federal Impact Aid Program has specific regulations and statutes which govern federal law in relation to the State's ability to deduct State aid to receive money. The guidelines are strict and will off set over $40 million dollars of State aid with federal receipts. Mr. Guiley advised that the Department, when drafting the regulations, formed a task group to help develop the new prioritization and construction standards as well as discussing the program. Representative Grussendorf noted his concern that Pelican is listed at the 30% match criteria. He thought that it would be very difficult for that community to be capable to provide the required match without at least a three year period. Representative Brown emphasized that some communities will not be able to accumulate the match without a few years preparation time. Mr. Guiley advised that part of the process of appropriating the money will involve applications from the school district. The school district establishes the scoop of the project and the total value. At that point, if the proposed legislation passed, the amount forwarded would be reduced by the required match. The full value of the project would be reported to the Legislature as well as the appropriation amount reduced by the match established. 5 Representative Hanley asked why the amendment included value "per ADM less than $200,000". Co-Chair Larson explained this would place the obligation upon DOE to determine the ability to spend the money and the willingness to spend that money. There being NO OBJECTION with Amendment 1, it so ordered. Co-Chair MacLean MOVED Amendment #2. [Attachment #2]. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair MacLean MOVED a language change to Page 2, Lines 28-29, placing a period after "a regional educational attendance area is two percent". A new sentence would then begin "The participating share of any district may be satisfied by money from federal, local, or other sources". There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Brown referenced Page 2, Line 15 and MOVED the additional language after the word "chapter" inserting "or AS 37.16.011". This would cross reference another fund. Mr. Guiley stated that the Department would not object to the addition of the language. There being NO OBJECTION, was so ordered. Representative Brown MOVED a language change to Page 2, Line 16 adding an additional sentence to read "A district shall have five years to provide the required participating share". Representative Hanley suggested that it be clarified that the time would be after the appropriation was made. Representative Martin recommended that the lapse period be three years. Mr. Guiley pointed out that the legislation does not set the timing of the match requirement. The Department anticipates that funds would be released to the school district and that district would have a window of opportunity to arrive at the local match. He felt that extending the lapse period to five years could be problematic. Representative Brown MOVED to change the "five" to "three years". There being NO OBJECTION to the amendment containing the three year period, it was so ordered. Representative Therriault MOVED a language change to Page 8, Line 6 deleting "capital projects" and inserting "facilities". There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Brown MOVED a language change to Page 8, Line 5 deleting "capital projects" and inserting "facilities". There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 6 Co-Chair Larson MOVED to report CS HB 82 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 82 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Department of Education dated 1/22/93, the Department of Revenue dated 1/22/93 and the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities dated 1/22/93.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|