Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
02/18/2008 11:00 AM Senate RULES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB119 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| SB 119 | |||
SB 119-SCHOOL LIBRARY GRANTS
11:01:04 AM
CHAIR STEVENS announced SB 119 to be up for consideration and
that CSSB 119(RLS), version K, was before the committee. He said
that the CS corrected a mistake in language as well as
clarifying the zero fiscal note.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to bring version K before the committee for
discussion purposes. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
DARWIN PETERSON, staff to Senator Stedman, said the change in
the new CS was located in section 1. He explained that the state
already had a library assistance grant fund in statute when SB
119 came to the Senate Finance Committee with a new materials
grant for school libraries; the committee amended that to also
include a construction grant for public libraries in small
communities around the state. When those two grant programs were
being developed in the committee, it was decided to eliminate
the Library Assistance Grant Fund because according to both the
Division of Legislative Audit and the Administration, that fund
had never been used and no money was ever appropriated into it.
11:02:07 AM
He explained a problem arose when the bill moved from committee
because it was found that the program was indeed being used,
even though the fund was not. It was the program through which
the state matched federal money for all of its public library
grants each year. The original legislation repealed all the
sections of statute that referred to the "Library Assistance
Grant Fund" but just the word "fund" needed to be deleted so
that the department could continue to receive money for the
grants.
11:03:13 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked what the CS does to the other repealer
sections of .310, .320, .330 and 340.
MR. PETERSON replied they are no longer being repealed because
they have the important eligibility requirements of the grant
program that receive federal funds for public libraries.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if all those other sections reference
the program.
MR. PETERSON answered yes.
11:04:37 AM
DAVE GRAY, staff to Senator Olson, said he supported the
changes.
CHAIR STEVENS said the sponsor statement needs to be rewritten.
MR. GRAY said Senator Stedman's office was going to do that.
11:05:15 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked how this bill started out and what its
purpose is.
MR. GREY replied that Senator Olson was asked last session to
bring forward a program of grant monies to school districts for
their libraries. The bill picked up some interest from Senator
Stedman for other libraries.
SENATOR GREEN said they are trying to do everything they can to
equalize things in the school funding formula and she thought
this had been covered there. She hated to think this was the
first of many line item requests outside of the formula.
11:07:06 AM
MR. PETERSON said, in response to Senator Green's question, it
was not the intent of the Senate Finance Committee when it
composed the CS to supplant any funds from local school
districts that are responsible for maintaining their libraries.
Senator Elton had that concern in committee and the bill was
amended prior to reporting it out. Language was adopted on page
3, line 29, clarifying these grants may not be used to supplant
school district expenditures for their libraries.
11:08:22 AM
SENATOR STEDMAN explained that the bill has two portions. One is
the 50-percent state capital match that has a population cap of
10,000 and a minimum contribution of 20 percent from the
municipality. The department would prioritize the requests and
the legislature may allocate funds for this purpose at its
discretion. There is no intent to fund the bill this year.
He explained that the 10,000 headcount was put in to exclude the
major population centers of Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau and
Eagle River because their library requests would be much larger
compared to the others and it would overwhelm them. The thought
was to address those separately. The intent is also to have
regulations written that would require on-going maintenance
replacement reserves. The scope of SB 119 was intended to
exclude communities that are so small they don't have the fiscal
capability of operating and maintaining their public libraries
and the larger ones who fiscal needs would overwhelm the fund.
11:11:19 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked for clarification of language on page 2,
line 17, that said a local government entity and an amount not
less than 20 percent.
SENATOR STEDMAN answered the idea is to get away from the state
doing 100 percent of the financing and the municipalities having
no money invested because the feeling is they would not have an
interest in maintaining them. He said the state contribution is
capped at $50,000.
CHAIR STEVENS asked if private donors could put in more than 30
percent and if their contributions would just reduce the state's
portion, not the municipalities'.
SENATOR STEDMAN said that was correct.
11:13:06 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for the definition of community. He
said when people in Fairbanks say "Fairbanks" they mean the
entire Interior of Alaska - the city of North Pole, there's the
borough and in Fairbanks, the borough owns the libraries. He
asked if the borough would be the community that would be used
for the count.
SENATOR STEDMAN replied there is a list of qualifying
communities and North Pole would qualify.
MR. PETERSON added that this question came up in Senate Finance,
as well, and "community" is not defined in statute. According to
Legislative Legal Division it is an all-encompassing term that
is used throughout statutes to include all locations throughout
the state where people reside. "So it includes boroughs, it
includes cities, it includes towns and it includes villages. So,
as Senator Stedman said, the Fairbanks North Star Borough would
not qualify, but the city of North Pole would."
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the community of Sutton in his district
(MatSu) has been working on upgrading its library and asked if
that city would qualify if the MatSu Borough oversees and owns
the libraries.
MR. PETERSON replied if the community of Sutton was applying it
would qualify. If it the MatSu Borough applied, it would not,
because it is too large to qualify.
11:16:34 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if there was another way to exclude the
larger communities that have the economic power to do projects
on their own and what the mechanism was for the legislature to
fund these grants on a yearly basis.
SENATOR STEDMAN replied the legislature at its own prerogative
will decide from year to year if it will fund the program
depending on the state's fiscal position at the time and the
size of the requests. He said they don't have a good
understanding of what is needed around the state.
This program is modeled after the harbor concept of a 50 percent
capital match and harbors don't get funded outside of the grant
process where the state would contribute 60-100 percent of the
funding. The idea is to try to channel the requests so that
communities will maintain and operate the public libraries after
they are built.
11:19:08 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if applications would be scored and if
the department would come up with the criteria. Also, if a
library wasn't funded one year, would it wait on the list or
have to apply next year and what happens when a new community
applies and goes to the front of the list?
SENATOR STEDMAN replied that likely the list would be
reprioritized from time to time; but it wouldn't be totally
rewritten every year. He liked the idea of having a ranked
process and then the legislature decides what ones would be
funded over time.
11:22:01 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked for a list of projects and the amounts
funded by federal and state government in the last 10 or 15
years. She recalled 1997/98 when federal library funds were
depleted and her concern that they were setting up a false hope
that there will be a fund that will fund libraries in the future
and there would be no money for it. She asked if they are not
doing it now, what has changed.
11:23:42 AM
SENATOR STEDMAN responded by asking if she was talking about the
library non-capital grants. He would have to dig to get her the
10 to 15 year information.
CHAIR STEVENS recapped that in the past the state had a program
and a fund and the CS is trying to keep the program and
eliminate the fund.
11:24:33 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted language saying "the library collection
development grant may not be used to supplement school
district..." on page 3, line 29 and asked how the legislature
would know a grant was used to supplant school district funds.
CHAIR STEVENS replied that the grant wouldn't exceed $3,000.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said it seemed to him that they are trying to
convey the idea to schools of keeping up with their libraries
out of the education funding in general, but then there is this
allowance for $3,000. And if they haven't been able to keep up
because of budgetary pressures and they use that $3,000 to catch
up, is that supplanting?
MR. GRAY deferred to Clark Gruening to answer that.
11:26:28 AM
CLARK GRUENING, Alaska School Library Association, answered that
on page 3, line 15, one of the eligibility requirements is
"contributes from the school district budget an amount that is
not less than the grant award that is being paid for library
collection materials."
SENATOR THERRIAULT said it seems even if the district has a part
time librarian it would cost more than $3,000.
MR. GRUENING countered that a lot of these libraries don't have
librarians; the books are on a shelf and they are trying to
change that by getting districts to buy in by requiring the
various matches.
11:28:30 AM
MR. PETERSON went to the two fiscal notes. He said the Senate
Finance Committee adopted a zero fiscal note for SB 119. A few
days after that, the fiscal noted dated 1/25/08 came back at
$1.2 million. They asked the department to provide another one
because the premise it used for the first one is that the
legislature will appropriate the maximum amount in FY'09 to
satisfy as many grants as could possibly be applied for. A
$3,000 maximum for the material grants for 400 schools resulted
in $1.2 million. He said they intend to create this program, but
not to fund it this year.
11:29:56 AM
MR. PETERSON said they expect the regulations to be promulgated
over the interim if the bill passes and then next year the
legislature can decide whether or not to appropriate money. It
could be anything up to $1.2 million for the material grants
portion of the bill. So they want the committee to adopt the
zero fiscal note.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he didn't think zero was appropriate and
that it deserved an asterisk.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he understood Senator Therriault's concern
as far as recognizing the potential impact of all fiscal notes
that the state might be setting itself up for. But the way this
fiscal note was written implies that the legislature would fund
it to the maximum and he didn't think that was very likely. He
thought it more appropriate that the fiscal note show the
financial exposure the state is facing.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said fiscal notes should show financial
exposure and putting zeros in the boxes was not right either.
That is why they have asterisks. Further he said the
administration might not know if the legislature would
appropriate any money this year or not.
11:33:07 AM
SENATOR STEDMAN responded that he agreed that potential impact
needs to be reflected in the fiscal note, but there is no
interest in funding it this year and there is no interest in
adding the person that is requested in the fiscal note. If the
department is so overtaxed with work, that it can't handle the
process of ranking and sorting, that discussion would probably
come to the legislature again.
11:34:25 AM
CHAIR STEVENS asked if the $1.2 million fiscal note is just a
reflection of the public school libraries and not of community
libraries.
SENATOR STEDMAN replied that is correct.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said something needs to be added to the
explanation of the potential grants. There has to be a process
for the communities to submit requests to and so some man hours
need to be put in the fiscal note.
SENATOR STEDMAN agreed that there would be a workload increase,
but as stewards of the treasury, they should be cautious in
funding fiscal notes every year and typically scrub them for
additional employees. From a broad perspective, he takes some of
the administration's head counts with a grain of salt as if it's
just a maneuver to pump up the budget.
11:37:39 AM
DAVID TEAL, Director, Legislative Finance, said there will be
two separate fiscal notes, the school one would come from the
Department of Education and the municipal one would come from
the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development.
This one is incorrectly prepared, he said, because it says a new
format has information columns going into the future. With
respect to Senator Therriault's questions, the information
columns are exactly why the format has changed and asterisks
should be used for explanations. For FY'09, the fiscal note used
the appropriation column for the $1.2 million instead of the
information column and as Senator Stedman testified, there is no
intention to fund it this year. If this fiscal note were to be
adopted, they would get $1.2 million because it's in the
appropriation column. If the same $1.2 million were put in the
information column, it would be a zero fiscal note. The $61,000
that goes along with the position should be zeroed out because
doesn't make sense to fund a position without funding the
grants.
11:40:17 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said appropriation bills appropriate money,
not fiscal notes. So, that appropriation would have to be built
into an appropriation bill anyway. On the personnel part,
writing a regulation package, getting public input and
determining what the scoring criteria would be would be more of
a manpower intensive effort than once the program is up and
running just receiving the applications and running them through
the criteria. If the department wanted to set up those criteria
before actually soliciting for grants, it would need the
manpower sooner.
MR. TEAL replied he was correct, but the point he is trying to
make is that there is an appropriation column on the fiscal
note, so it could be funded in 2010.
11:42:51 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said according to Mr. Teal, they should have
two fiscal notes and they only have one. He said either the
committee could write the other one as indicated or they could
ask the departments.
11:43:31 AM at ease 11:47:08 AM
11:47:19 AM
RICHARD LUTHER, Legislative Liaison, Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED), explained he developed the fiscal note
based on the assumption that it could be funded. He found out
how many school libraries would qualify and then if the bill
were funded, they put in the maximum amount. The state library
indicated it would need a position to be able to administer the
program. After submitting the fiscal note, the department got a
request to submit either a zero or an indeterminate fiscal note.
If the program were not to be funded, that could be indicated as
indeterminate, but it could be anything from zero up to the
maximum amount.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he thought using an asterisk would be
appropriate because he had no way of knowing what would be
appropriated.
MR. LUTHER said they could do that and that's how it would read.
11:49:43 AM at ease 11:50:57 AM
SENATOR ELLIS moved to adopt CSSB 119(RLS), version K. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to adopt the indeterminate fiscal notes.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Stevens adjourned the meeting at 11:52:24 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|