Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/23/2003 01:36 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 165
"An Act relating to community schools; and providing
for an effective date."
Co-Chair Williams stated that public testimony on this bill
had concluded at its previous hearing. He noted that the
bill would repeal the Community Schools grant program, and
observed that currently 80 percent of schools in the program
received grants of roughly $5 thousand annually. He stated
that the Administration viewed the grant program as having
been intended only to provide support to initiate community
schools programs, and that this goal had already been
achieved.
EDDY JEANS, MANAGER, SCHOOL FINANCE AND FACILITIES SECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT provided
clarification on the bill. He responded to questions raised
in previous testimony about the spreadsheet prepared by the
Department of Education and Early Development ("Community
Schools Expenditures and Grants, Prepared 3/12/03", copy on
file).
Mr. Jeans noted that the spreadsheet had reflected
expenditures for community services. He provided a
departmental regulation definition of community services:
activities provided by the school or district for the
purpose of relating to the community as a whole, or some
segment of the community, not directly related to providing
education for students. He listed examples such as
recreation, public libraries, civic activities, public radio
programs, community welfare activities and childcare in
residential day schools. He quoted the Community Schools
statute, under purpose and intent: Community Schools
promotes more efficient use of school facilities through the
extension of buildings and equipment beyond the normal
schools day. He explained that the Department aggregated
expenditures for activities that occurred "outside the
normal school day" in preparing the figures in the
spreadsheet. He pointed out that there is a separate fund
called "community schools", where districts deposit the
grant and matching funds for the specific purpose of
Community Schools programs. The spreadsheet had included
expenditures for all community services and not just for
community schools.
Representative Croft asked if the total of $500 thousand
reflected all community services or just community schools.
Mr. Jeans confirmed that this amount represented the total
grants provided to schools. He noted that the previous
column (Community Schools FY02 Expenditures) reflected all
community services, and not just functions of the grant
program.
Co-Chair Harris observed that the areas most affected by the
legislation were rural areas. Mr. Jeans clarified that
these areas reflected 100 percent funding of programs by the
grant funds. He maintained that these schools were
accounting for some of their operating costs elsewhere in
their budgets.
Co-Chair Harris noted that in rural communities, the schools
were the center of community activity, whereas larger cities
had other options for activities. He asked if any means
existed to lessen the effect on rural communities of the
resulting decrease in availability of facilities.
Mr. Jeans speculated that the facilities would remain open.
He submitted that a grant of $1,500 would not keep a school
open for a significant period. He suggested that other
resources were already being used to support activities.
Co-Chair Harris asked that the fiscal note which reflects a
savings of $500 thousand be zero since it was already zeroed
out of the budget.
Mr. Jeans stated that the Department had previously
acknowledged that the program was zeroed out in the budget,
but agreed to prepare a new fiscal note.
Representative Hawker observed that the State recognizes and
encourages the continuation of community schools programs.
He pointed out, however, that by repealing sections of the
statute it takes away the State's authority to fund the
program in the future, even though the funding had already
been taken out of the State's budget for FY 04.
Mr. Jeans acknowledged concern that the bill would diminish
districts' ability to continue their community schools
programs. He maintained that districts would continue to
offer community schools programs. He acknowledged that user
fees might be slightly increased to accommodate grant cuts.
Co-Chair Harris MOVED to report HB165 out of Committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. Representative Croft OBJECTED.
Representative Hawker also OBJECTED. He acknowledged that
the funding was already zeroed out, but stated that he would
be more comfortable supporting communities who rely on this
program by retaining the option to consider possible future
funding. He would like to see the statute maintained.
Representative Croft pointed out that there was no funding
saved by passing the legislation, since the action of
eliminating funding had already been taken in the operating
budget. He took exception to the sponsor statement that the
statute was intended merely to start the program and not to
maintain it. He noted programs like the school lunch
program, which would be damaged if funding diminished after
the program had been established. He also gave examples of
reading and tutorial programs in Anchorage and maintained
that the small amount of [community schools] funding was
doing a great deal of good. He noted that the statute
reflected support of the program, and that it was
appropriate for the legislature to provide a small amount of
financial incentive for these valuable programs.
TAPE HFC 03 - 61, Side B
Representative Whitaker questioned the purpose of passing
the legislation, since funding had already been cut. He
maintained that the action would serve no purpose.
Co-Chair Williams concurred with the Administration that to
repeal the legislation was a housekeeping measure. He
suggested that future legislatures could enact other
legislation if the ability and need to fund the programs
arose.
Vice-Chair Meyer asked for further explanation of the
Administration's support of the bill.
Mr. Jeans relayed the funding history of the bill, and the
statutory entitlement of the program. He noted full
funding- of the program would entail $3.2 million. He
stated that the program had been funded at under $800
thousand since 1988. He observed that the intent of the
statute was to implement programs that would later become
self-sufficient. He submitted that the Administration
ceased to provide operational funding to the program in the
mid 1980's. Funding levels had been prorated down to a
level as low as $1,500. He suggested that unless the
legislature was willing to fund the program, the
Administration felt it was time to take the statute off the
books.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Meyer, Moses, Whitaker, Chenault, Foster,
Williams, Harris
OPPOSED: Stoltze, Croft, Hawker
The MOTION PASSED 7-3.
CSHB 165 (HES) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and a new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Education and Early Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|