Legislature(2017 - 2018)CAPITOL 106
01/27/2017 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Department of Education and Early Development on the Foundation Formula | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
January 27, 2017
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Harriet Drummond, Chair
Representative Justin Parish, Vice Chair
Representative Zach Fansler
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative David Talerico
HOUSE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
Representative Dan Ortiz, Chair
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Justin Parish
Representative Zach Fansler
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative David Talerico
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
Representative Geran Tarr (Alternate)
HOUSE FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT ON
THE FOUNDATION FORMULA
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MINDY LOBAUGH, School Finance Specialist
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the department's presentation on
the foundation formula.
HEIDI TESHNER, Director
Administrative Services
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the
presentation of the foundation formula.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:30 AM
CHAIR DAN ORTIZ called the joint meeting of the House Education
Standing Committee and the House Finance Subcommittee on
Education and Early Development meeting to order at 8:01 a.m.
Representatives Ortiz, Kopp, Parish, Fansler, Johnston,
Spohnholz, Talerico, and Thompson were present at the call to
order. Representative Drummond arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
[Due to technical difficulties the call to order and attendance
were not recorded.]
^PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT ON
THE FOUNDATION FORMULA
PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT ON
THE FOUNDATION FORMULA
8:04:12 AM
CHAIR ORTIZ announced that the only order of business would be a
presentation by the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED) on the foundation formula.
8:05:08 AM
MINDY LOBAUGH, School Finance Specialist, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), referred to the handout out in the committee
packet, titled "Alaska Public School Funding Formula Overview"
to begin the presentation. She said the current public school
funding formula was adopted under SB 36, implemented in 1999,
and is defined in AS 14.17.
8:06:22 AM
MS. LOBAUGH explained that the average daily membership (ADM) is
the number of enrolled students during the 20 school-day count
period ending on the fourth Friday of October. The number is
reported to the department within two weeks of the end of the
period. Projections of the student count for the following
school year are due by November 5. Eligibility for state
foundation funding is applicable as follows: all students who
are 6 years of age before September 1, and under the age of 20,
who have not completed the 12th grade; children 5 years of age
before September 1, may enter kindergarten; or children with
disabilities who hold an active individualized education program
(IEP) and have reached the age of 3 but are less than age 22 by
July 1. She pointed out that the applicable statutes, for each
of aspects of the formula, are included in the handout.
8:07:34 AM
MS. LOBAUGH pointed out that there are two aspects to the
education formula: first is determining the adjusted ADM, and
second is figuring out who pays. The ADM is calculated by
applying six steps. Step 1 adjusts for school size; steps 2-4
apply factors for a district's cost, special needs, and
vocational and technical education (CTE); and steps 5 and 6 are
the additions made to include intensive services and
correspondence counts. The resulting sum is the ADM, which is
the figure used to calculate state aid entitlement.
8:08:52 AM
MS. LOBAUGH continued with the details of each step beginning
with the adjustment for school size. She directed attention to
the handout, page 7, which provides a chart showing the formula
figure that is factored in, based on a school's ADM. Eight
school size variances are considered. She paraphrased the
parameters for the adjustments, listed on the page, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
A Community with an ADM:
Under 10 - added to the smallest school with an ADM
greater than 10.
10 through 100 - Grades K-12 ADM is combined and
adjusted once; adjusted as one school.
101 through 425 - ADM for grades K-6 and 7-12 are
adjusted separately; adjusted as two schools.
Greater than 425 - The ADM of each facility
administered separately as one school is adjusted.
8:09:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked if districts are encouraged to
have more than one school if the ADM is greater than 425,
because adjustments would be made on each facility. A district
that has 10 schools, for example, and perhaps two of the
elementary schools are under enrolled, the district would
receive a greater adjustment for size by maintaining the "two
extra schools."
MS. LOBAUGH responded that within the ADM adjustments certain
cost factors are locked in for facility operation and
maintenance. If a school has an ADM below school capacity, the
facility still needs to be operated and maintained. Thus, the
adjustment may appear higher in certain areas and said that
further details on this would come to the fore later in the
presentation.
8:11:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked what defines a community.
MS. LOBAUGH explained that a community is a group of families
living in a specific village or city, and offered to provide
further information for a more definitive description. She said
that EDC uses the definition and a list provided and compiled by
the Division of Community and Regional Affairs (CRA) [Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)]. Some of
the communities are taxable, but many are not and EDC and CRA
work jointly for determination purposes.
8:14:12 AM
MS. LOBAUGH continued with two other variables that are
considered when adjusting the ADM, which are alternative and
charter schools. She paraphrased from the committee handout,
page 8, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Alternative school with an ADM of 175 or greater and
administered as a separate facility the ADM will be
adjusted separately, unless:
1. It is in the 1st year of service with ADM between
120 to 175 receives adjustment of 1.33; OR
2. It had an ADM of 175 or greater in the prior year
but drops below 175 in the current fiscal year it will
receive an adjustment of 1.33; OR
3. It has an ADM of less than 175 it shall be counted
as a part of the school in the district with the
highest ADM.
Charter school with an ADM of 150 or greater is
adjusted as a separate facility unless:
1. It is in the 1st year of service with an ADM
between 75 to 150 it receives an adjustment of 1.45;
OR
2. It had an ADM of 75 or greater in the prior year
but drops below this in the current fiscal year it
will receive an adjustment of 1.45; OR
3. It continues to stay below 75 ADM then it receives
an adjustment of 1.18.
8:17:02 AM
MS. LOBAUGH drew attention to the document in the committee
packet titled, "Public School Funding Program Overview, Updated
September 2016," specifically pages 8-9, to point out the
district list and how each of the steps being discussed can be
followed via the column headings, to track the effects on the
final ADM and the FY17 projected state entitlement per district.
Using Nome Public School District, as a city borough model for
calculation purposes, the projections for the district were as
follows: Nome Elementary School 380.00; Nome-Beltz Jr/Sr High
School 255.00; the local charter facility Anvil City Science
Academy 60.00; Nome Youth Facility, based on bed count, 14.00;
and Extension Correspondence program 10.00; resulting in a
projected ADM submitted to the department of 719.00.
8:19:15 AM
MS. LOBAUGH continued to detail the adjustments for Nome based
on the projected school populations. Referring to page 10 of
the handout, she walked through the separate calculations for
the K-6 and 7-12 facilities, the Anvil Charter School, and the
Youth facility, to arrive at a school size adjusted ADM of
893.55.
8:20:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON identified the reference line 6 formula
number of 326.10, used in the adjustment calculation, and asked
for the source the figure.
MS. LOBAUGH explained that the formula numbers were derived by
the McDowell Group. She offered her understanding that the
adjustment is a reasonable figure to the size of the schools in
the district. The origins can be found in SB 36, and she
offered to provide further information.
8:21:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON maintained interest in knowing the
policy decision behind the figure.
CHAIR ORTIZ added that AS 14.17.440 contains a table indicating
the number in question and the other derived figures for school
size adjustments.
8:22:41 AM
MS. LOBAUGH explained the hold harmless provision, which was
established to stabilize districts budgets through times of
major enrollment fluctuations. To determine eligibility, the
district's sum total of the school size adjustment is compared
against the prior fiscal year. If a decrease of 5 percent or
greater has occurred, then the prior fiscal year will become the
base, and the hold harmless provision is triggered. A three
year window is considered: the first year, 75 percent of the
difference to the base year is retained, the second year 50
percent, and for the third year 25 percent is retained for
addition back onto the school size adjustment. The idea is that
a district not be put into shock due to an in or out migration
of students. She continued with the Nome model to apply the
hold harmless provision to the ADM, paraphrasing the language
from the handout, page 12, which read as follows:
Nome received 25 percent of hold harmless in FY 2012.
That was the final phase so the district transitioned
out of hold harmless.
Did Nome's total school size decrease by 5 percent or
greater and reactivate the hold harmless provision?
FY16 Projected ADM 694.00 -School Size Adj. ADM 878.45
FY17 Projected ADM 719.00 -School Size Adj. ADM 893.55
Resulting in an increase in DIFFERENCE of 15.10
No ... the district increased in total school size.
8:25:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked how the hold harmless provision
affects alternative and charter schools.
MS. LOBAUGH responded that the Nome's Anvil School, a charter
alternative, was included in the computation.
8:26:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP considered Nome's FY17 projected ADM of 719,
and the projected school size ADM of 893, not quite a 200
student increase, to ponder whether an easier approach might be
to establish a cost of living percentage for rural areas versus
a complicated formula of this type. He asked whether the local
school district makes determinations on the viability for
maintaining a school or the department.
MS. LOBAUGH said the decision for affording to operate a school
is held at the local level under district control. She pointed
out that the district cost factor will be the next factor in the
formula.
8:27:55 AM
MS. LOBAUGH continued with the step 2 district cost factors,
which are district specific and range from 1.000 to 2.116. The
American Institute for Research reviewed the cost factors in
2002, but the results were considered unacceptable, and the
Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) performed a
study that was embraced in 2005. She referred to the
supplemental handout, page 8, column Q, to indicate the cost
factor multipliers for all districts. The cost factors were
implemented over a five year period, through HB 273. Using the
Nome example the cost factor of 1.450 is multiplied with the
school size adjusted ADM of 893.55, producing a further adjusted
ADM of 1,295.65. Step 3 addresses special needs funding and
includes programs for special education (except intensive),
vocational education, gifted/talented, and bilingual/bicultural;
it is block funded at 20 percent. The Nome cost factor of
1,295.65 is multiplied by 1.20, arriving at 1,554.78;
essentially a 20 percent add-on.
8:29:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ requested confirmation that the 20
percent special needs factor is applied across the board, and
throughout the state.
MS. LOBAUGH said correct.
8:30:17 AM
MS. LOBAUGH said step 4 factors in vocational and technical
funding. Career and technical education (CTE) is funded at a
factor of 1.015, and is intended to assist districts in
providing career and technical educational services in grades 7-
12. It excludes costs associated with administrative expenses
and instruction in general literacy, mathematics, and job
readiness skills. Applied to the Nome public school example,
the factors of 1,554.78 and 1.015, result in an ADM adjusted
product of 1,578.10.
8:31:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER questioned the need to have multiple
layers of steps to arrive at district funding totals versus the
application of a straight forward equation.
MS. LOBAUGH acknowledged the length and complexity of the
formula, and assured the committee that the process has proven
necessary in order to arrive at equal and fair funding levels as
required by our large, diverse state.
MS. LOBAUGH explained step 5, intensive services funding, and
said districts are eligible if any enrolled students meet the
following criteria: 1) a student is receiving intensive
services; 2) the student is enrolled on the last day of the 20-
school-day count period; and 3) the school meets intensive
qualifications for each intensive services student. The
intensive student count carries a funding factor of 13. A
district will receive $77,090 for each intensive services
student. In Nome, the number of intensive students projected
was 5, multiplied by the factor of 13. Thus, the previous
1,578.10 ADM product is adjusted to 1,643.10.
8:33:38 AM
CHAIR ORTIZ asked how a student is identified and assigned an
intensive needs designation.
MS. LOBAUGH answered that the intensive needs definition is held
in statute. Categories exist for intensive students and new
enrollees are appropriately reviewed to ensure compliance.
8:34:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ noted that intensive student funding is
based on a per student cost not a formula base.
MS. LOBAUGH said correct.
8:34:37 AM
MS. LOBAUGH explained Step 6, to factor in the correspondence
programs, and said districts receive a multiplier for these
programs based on 90 percent of the correspondence ADM. Each
correspondence ADM generates $5,337.00. In the Nome example the
projected correspondence student ADM of 10 is multiplied by .90
to produce 9.00, which is in turn multiplied to the adjusted ADM
of 1,643.10 to arrive at a new ADM of 1,652.10. Thus, the final
figure for the adjusted ADM is established and is multiplied
with the base student allocation (BSA). The product represents
a district's basic need entitlement. By using the factors of
the adjusted ADM 1,652.10 and BSA of $5,930, the total
entitlement for Nome's school district is the product:
$9,796,953 for operation of schools and delivery of education.
8:37:10 AM
MS. LOBAUGH reviewed a 10 year history of the BSA, from 2008-
2018 projection, and pointed out that 2012-2015 totals included
one-time grants, issued outside of the formula but based on the
adjusted ADM determinations. She directed attention to the
committee handout, page 24, and summarized steps 1-6 for the
Nome example, from the initial figure of 709.00 through the
determination of the basic need amount of $9,796,953. Ms.
Lobaugh then focused on how funding sources are calculated, or
who pays, by reviewing each of the three components of basic
need: required local contribution, federal impact aid, and
state aid. The required local contribution is based on the
current year full and true value, as provided annually by the
State Assessor's Office, multiplied by 2.65 mils. The product
is used for the purpose of calculating the required local effort
for foundation funding. The Nome example uses the 2015 full
assessed values in the equation. She said the lesser of the
equivalent of 2.65 mils of the full and true value, but not to
exceed 45 percent of the school districts prior year, results in
the basic need, thus: .00265 times the full and true value tax
base of $366,202,900 equals $970,438; and the prior year basic
need of $9,946,726 multiplied by 0.45 percent equals $4,476,027.
The lesser product of these two equations is $970,438 which is
what Nome uses as its required local contribution. Only three
districts use 0.45 percent of the prior year basic need: North
Slope, Skagway, and Valdez. Next, the federal contributions are
considered, as received under Title VII, previously Title VIII.
8:39:29 AM
CHAIR ORTIZ asked about the three named districts that fall
under the 0.45 percent category and whether they share any
commonalities.
MS. LOBAUGH responded that full valuations for Valdez and the
North Slope rank as highest in the state, due to the pipeline,
and Skagway is dramatically effected by tourism. She deferred
to the assessor for further response regarding Skagway property
values.
8:40:56 AM
MS. LOBAUGH said the Title VII federal impact aid payments
received from March 1 through the last day of February are used
as payment for basic need following deductions of funds specific
to special education (SPED), one fifth Native lands, and
construction. Calculating the Nome example, no payments were
received from March 1 through the end of February that included
SPED funding, Native lands are not applicable for the district,
and no construction funds were in play; thus, the total $60,026
was eligible for deduction in the formula process.
8:41:44 AM
MS. LOBAUGH explained that the impact aid percentage is derived
by dividing the required local contributions by the budgeted
local contribution. The budgeted local contribution is part of
a city a boroughs budget, as submitted on July 15 every year,
and may consist of appropriations, investment earnings, in-kind
services and other local benefactions. The required amount for
Nome was calculated at $970,438, divided by the budgeted local
contribution of $2,304,952, for an impact aid result of 42.10
percent. She pointed out that this calculation is only
performed for city and boroughs. She said Nome's eligible
impact aid figure of $60,026 is multiplied by the Title VII
percentage of 42.10, multiplied again by 90 percent, and results
in a deductible impact aid total for Nome of $22,744. The
final calculation for Nome's state aid total can then be
determined: basic need of $9,796,953, less the deductions for
required local contributions, $970,438, and impact aid, $22,744,
for a sum of $8,803.771.
8:44:03 AM
MS. LOBAUGH pointed out that other funds may be obtained by a
district via additional local contributions and quality school
grants. Determining additional local contribution levels
requires two calculations: 1) the greater of 2 mils of the tax
base or 2) 23 percent of the district's current year basic need
and state funds calculated on the adjusted ADM. For Nome the
0.002 factored with the full and true value tax base of
$366,202,900 provides a product of $732,406; however, when 0.23
is factored with the basic need of $9,796,953 added to the
adjusted ADM of $26,434, the product is $2,259,379. As the
greater of the two amounts, Nome uses the $2,259,379 as its
additional local contribution, adding it to the required local
contribution figure of $970,438, for a maximum local
contribution of $3,229,817. Ms. Lobaugh explained that the
quality school grant was established under AS 14.17.480, and
allows a factor of $16 to be calculated on a district's adjusted
ADM. Nome has an adjusted ADM of 1,652.10, which, when factored
with the $16 grant provides a grant of $26,434. The program,
begun in 1998, serves the purpose of increasing student
achievement through the methodical improvement of Alaska's
public schools. The quality school initiative promotes school
improvement by providing clear standards for schools to attain,
categorized as follows: 1) implementation of student standards
and assessment; 2) professional standards for teachers and
administrators; 3) family, school, business, and community
networks; and 4) school excellence standards. Districts may
apply for the grant on an annual basis and successful schools
submit a yearly report. Nome's calculated state aid of
$8,803,771 is added to the quality school grant of $26,434, to
arrive at the total state entitlement sum of $8,830,205.
8:48:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that the formula is an example of
simplicity being lost and is a process where legislative
oversite becomes difficult given the complexity. It would be
helpful if the law could be reviewed to ensure the possibility
of policy review and oversight.
8:49:35 AM
CHAIR ORTIZ established that Ms. Lobaugh has been working with
the formula for sixteen years and surmised that she may have an
understanding of how well it works. He asked for her opinion
for whether it provides equality across the state.
MS. LOBAUGH empathized with the complications of the formula
process; however, she opined, that it provides a solid base for
equality and distribution of federal, education funding without
disparity.
8:51:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked how much federal impact aid the
state receives.
MS. LOBAUGH answered federal funds amount to roughly $130
million, which, following district deductions, results in about
$80 million being applied to the formula; as shown in the
committee handout, page 9, column F.
8:52:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked what happens with the $50 million
remaining federal dollars.
MS. LOBAUGH responded that remaining funds are distributed
directly to the districts; outside of the formula.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that Nome has a state entitlement
of $8.8 million, but the city could contribute another $3.2
million, thus it could have a total budget of about $12 million.
8:53:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON returned to the topic of the quality
school initiative and asked whether a district's qualification
is based on results of standardized testing.
MS. LOBAUGH deferred response to the department's Division of
Teaching and Learning Support.
8:54:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH commented that the eligible federal impact
aid receipts, $120 million, allow the state to deduct about $80
million from what it would otherwise be obligated to provide.
MS. LOBAUGH said that Representative Parish's comment is a fair
assessment; however, not every district receives federal impact
aid, in which case the state pays the bill.
8:55:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER questioned the rational for a community
contribution cap.
8:56:28 AM
MS. LOBAUGH responded that it's necessary to ensure against
disparity between districts and maintain Alaska as an equalized
state.
8:56:58 AM
MS. LOBAUGH addressed how Regional Education Attendance Areas
(REAAs) are handled, using Kashunamiut school district as the
example. Step 1 begins with the ADM as reported from each
school. The Chevak Community School is a single facility
serving students from K-12, with an ADM of 324. The ADM number
falls between 101 and 425 and therefore Chevak will be adjusted
as two schools. The K-6 ADM was reported as 196 and 7-12 as
128. She directed attention to the handout, page 41 and the
formula matrix to apply the appropriate school size equation to
each ADM and arrive at the total, school size adjusted ADM of
457.94. The next step is to determine whether hold harmless
applies: did the school size decrease by 5 percent or greater.
The difference in the school size adjusted ADM for FY16 and FY17
is 22.36, divided by the FY16 school size, shows a 4.66 percent
change over the prior year; thus, the decrease is not enough to
activate the hold harmless provision.
8:59:43 AM
MS. LOBAUGH turned to page 43 of the handout to indicate how
steps 2, 3, and 4 are applied to an REAA, as follows: multiply
the school size adjusted ADM by the district cost factor to
determine the adjusted ADM; multiply the adjusted ADM by the
special needs factor; and multiply the further adjusted ADM by
the CTE factor. For the Kashunamiut district the final product
is 903.03. Step 5 factors in the intensive student count, of
which Kashunamiut projected 7, multiplied by 13 for a product of
91, and to the adjusted ADM to total 994.03. Step 6 factors in
the correspondence students, of which Kashunamiut School
District has none. To determine the basic need, the adjusted
ADM is multiplied by the BSA: 994.03 times the factor of $5,930
for a product of $5,894,598. The correspondence ADM is
contained in steps 5 and 6, which is multiplied by the 7
intensive students and zero correspondence. Thus, the
district's BSA is determined to be $5,894.598.
9:01:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO established that for both scenarios
[city and boroughs and REAAs] the special needs and intensive
services student will always represent separate costs; never a
combination.
MS. LOBAUGH concurred.
9:01:38 AM
MS. LOBAUGH said that to determine who pays the components of
basic need, an REAA has only two sources to consider: federal
impact aid and state aid. Required local effort is not a factor
as REAAs lack an economic tax base. Beginning with the Title
VII impact aid payments for Kashunamiut, from March 1 through
the end of February, of $3,181,975, less the $668,010
representing one fifth Native lands, SPED, and some
construction, results an eligible deduction of $2,513.965. The
eligible impact aid received by a school district is multiplied
by 90 percent. An REAA has no local taxing authority, thus the
full 90 percent is applied to determine the deductible impact
aid: $2,513,965 factored by 90 percent equals $2,262,569.
Finishing the Kashunamiut example, she used the basic need,
$5,894,598, subtracted the impact aid figure, $2,262,569, and
arrived at the state aid total of $3,632,029. Kashunamiut also
received a quality school grant of $15,904, making its state
entitlement total $3,647,933. She noted that if the amount
appropriated by the legislature is insufficient to meet the
total amount authorized, then the basic need for all districts
is reduced pro rata.
9:04:13 AM
MS. LOBAUGH directed attention to the final page of the handout,
titled, "Foundation Funding Formula, FY2018 Projection," to
illustrate the bottom line, statewide education projections for
FY18: beginning with the projected ADM figure of 130,203.20,
following it through the adjustments to arrive at an adjusted
ADM dollar amount of $255,081.57, which is then factored by the
BSA, required local contributions, deductible impact aid, and
quality schools adjustments to arrive at the FY18 state aid
entitlement final figure of $1,191,230,276. She pointed out
that the components of entitlement funding are the state general
funds (GF), the public school trust fund, and federal impact
aid.
9:05:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked what data resources are available
for general use.
MS. LOBAUGH recommended committee members visit the department's
web site and follow the "Finance and Facility" tab to access the
finance foundation link and the available spread sheets.
9:05:57 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, Director, Administrative Services, offered to
provide members links to the information.
9:06:07 AM
CHAIR ORTIZ asked what characteristics of an REAA exempts it
from making tax contributions.
MS. LOBAUGH responded that REAAs are unorganized areas without
authority to tax. The lands are generally federally held or
represent an area comprised of villages that have no economic
base.
CHAIR ORTIZ suggested that perhaps federal taxes are paid.
MS. LOBAUGH said that in an REAA there is no ability to run a
mil rate against real property and collect a tax.
9:07:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ noted that the special needs factor
represents a formula and asked how it contrasts against actual
special needs students in each district.
MS. LOBAUGH said an SB 36 report is on the web site and offered
to provide it to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ suggested that it would be good to
review the intensive needs and special services aspect of the
formula and determine if it remains a rational formula or if it
may need to be revisited by the legislature. Given the wide
range of needs in these two areas, she said it may be
disproportionate between districts and the 20 percent method may
no longer be the best approach.
9:10:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked whether the department tracks how
the student count corresponds with Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)
applications, on an annual basis, and pondered whether there is
a related impact.
MS. LOBAUGH answered that the department has not used the PFD
data base as a point of reference.
9:10:56 AM
CHAIR ORTIZ thanked the participants.
[Chair Ortiz passed the gavel to Representative Drummond.]
9:11:47 AM
CHAIR DRUMMOND announced the next regular meeting of the House
Education Standing Committee and gaveled out.
9:11:58 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the joint
meeting of the House Education Standing Committee and the House
Finance Subcommittee on Education and Early Development was
adjourned at 9:12 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Funding Program Overview 2017_eff9-2016.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2017 8:00:00 AM |
DEED Overview |
| 1-27-17 PresentationFY17 Foundation REAA-KSD.pdf |
HEDC 1/27/2017 8:00:00 AM |
DEED Overview |