03/02/2004 11:06 AM House EDU
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
March 2, 2004
11:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Les Gara
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 425
"An Act relating to funding for school districts operating
secondary school boarding programs, to funding for school
districts from which boarding students come, and to inoperative
school districts; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 333
"An Act relating to an endowment for public education; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 405
"An Act relating to reports on school and school district
performance; and relating to accountability of public schools
and school districts; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 425
SHORT TITLE: BOARDING SCHOOL FUNDING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
02/04/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/04 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
03/02/04 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 333
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC SCHOOL ENDOWMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGG, COGHILL, HOLM
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
01/27/04 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
01/27/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/02/04 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 405
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL PERFORMANCE DESIGNATION/REPORT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GATTO
01/28/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/04 (H) EDU, HES
02/17/04 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/17/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/02/04 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 425 and answered
questions from the members.
HARRY WHITE, Principal
Project Education Residential School
Galena School District
Galena, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 425 and answered
questions from the members.
EDDIE JEANS, Finance Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 425 and answered questions
from the members.
JOSEPH BEEDLE
Vice President for Finance
University of Alaska Systems
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 333.
BOB LOEFFLER, Director
Division of Mining, Land, and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 333 and answered questions
from the members.
LES MORSE, Director
Assessment and Accountability
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 405.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-12, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Special Committee on Education
meeting to order at 11:06 a.m. Representatives Gatto, Seaton,
Wilson, Ogg, and Gara present at the call to order.
Representative Wolf arrived as the meeting was in progress.
CHAIR GATTO told the members that today is the 100th birthday of
Dr. Seuss and Gastineau School has invited the members to a
celebration in his honor. A free book will given to each child
that attends, he added.
HB 425-BOARDING SCHOOL FUNDING
[Contains discussion of HB 390.]
CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 425, "An Act relating to funding for school
districts operating secondary school boarding programs, to
funding for school districts from which boarding students come,
and to inoperative school districts; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0186
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, testified
as sponsor of HB 425 and answered questions from the members.
He told the members that he represents the North Pole area, and
grew up in Nenana. The Nenana School Board was instrumental in
bringing the boarding school issue to his attention, he said.
Representative Coghill explained that HB 425 provides boarding
schools with stipend benefits beyond what is already allowed
under some circumstances. This bill would expand currently
operating boarding schools' ability to collect stipends and one
round trip transportation cost for each student who attends
boarding schools. A sunset provision is provided in the bill to
ensure that there is a review of the pilot program in five
years, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL told the members that he struggled with
the thought that [provisions in this bill] could impact a
community in such a way that it could lose its school. For
example, by allowing students to attend one of the boarding
schools it could mean the number of student [in a particular
community] could fall below the required 10 students. He told
the members that the hold harmless language was inserted in the
bill to address that issue. He pointed out that it would be
necessary for the school district to show that the student(s)
would benefit from classes that would not otherwise be offered
in a small community, but could be obtained at a boarding
school. If this were the case, the school district would be
held harmless for the loss of a student while he/she were
attending a boarding school.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL told the members that there will be a
cost of $1,406,000. The fiscal note is based on the present
number of boarding school students, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL told the members that Eddie Jeans from
the Department of Education and Early Development mentioned to
him that Section 1 could be removed from the bill because it
does not apply to the 10-student rule. Representative Coghill
emphasized that if a student leaves a boarding school, the
boarding school loses funding for that student.
Number 0578
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that boarding schools have an
interesting history in Alaska. He said he was raised in a small
village that had a small Episcopalian boarding school. Many
Native people he knew were negatively affected by mandatory
moves to boarding schools both inside and outside of Alaska.
Some of those students had very bad experiences, he added. The
schools were not well run. As a result, there was a real stigma
attached to boarding schools in Alaska, he explained.
Representative Coghill told the members that he believes there
is a greater respect for the [Native] culture and the needs of
students. He said that some of these schools help students grow
who might otherwise find themselves in tough circumstances
within a village. He said he was impressed by the way some of
the students have improved their education and changed many
things in their lives to a more healthy way of living. The
students have done this while remaining culturally relevant and
academically appropriate, Representative Coghill added.
Number 0680
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL told the committee that there is a fiscal
note attached. He explained that he has been talking with
members [of the House Finance Committee] about ways to finance
this pilot program. He added that he does not have a specific
revenue source identified to pay for this project yet, but is
working on one.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he believes this is a good thing to
do. He has seen the successes from the Nenana and Galena
boarding schools. Some students have told him that without the
educational opportunity offered them at these schools they most
assuredly would have failed school due to peer pressure and
academic deficiencies. He acknowledged that this bill does not
fix every problem, but it is one niche that needs to be
seriously considered.
CHAIR GATTO asked if there is a state definition for boarding
schools. He noted that some literature refers to these
educational opportunities as "residential programs" and others
refer to it as "boarding school programs." He suggested that
the term residential program be used instead of boarding school
because boarding school does have a historical stigma for some
Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed that there may be a stigma in
referring to boarding schools, but there is a difference in
administration between a residential program and a boarding
school. For example, Nenana, which is a home rule community,
has put its own money into the existing school. The community
has opened its public school to students of a residential center
which has its own program, but the community supplies the
schoolrooms and teachers. He explained that Nenana did that to
increase the student count, because the community had a big
building in a diminishing town. Whereas, in Galena the school
is a residential boarding school.
Number 0935
CHAIR GATTO announced for the record that Representative Wolf
has joined the meeting.
Number 0940
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed to Section 2 [page 1, line 14 and
page 2, line 1 and 2] where it says:
(a) A district that began operating a secondary
boarding program before January 1, 2004, is eligible
to receive reimbursement for the costs incurred by the
district in operating that program.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that if this is a good model to
follow, then why would some districts not qualify [because its
school was not in operation on January 1, 2004].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that there is a practical
reason. He said if this program works he does not know if the
state can afford to allow these schools to flourish throughout
the state. Representative Coghill commented that he believes
these programs work, but thinks it is best to offer a pilot
program to those existing boarding schools for a time, and then
take another look at the programs. He emphasized that a good
review needs to be done before making a sweeping policy call.
CHAIR GATTO commented that there are laws of unintended
consequences. He asked for clarification that students who
attend boarding schools will still be counted as present in the
districts where the students come from.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL posed the following hypothetical example
to clarify how the hold harmless provision works. A school has
exactly 10 students and a student chooses to go to a boarding
school because there is an educational or social problem that
would warrant the student attending a boarding school. The
school district he leaves would lose funding for the next year;
however, this legislation would provide that the school would be
held harmless from closure due to the drop in student enrollment
[and the ten-student rule]. The provision does not mean that
the school would get funding for a student who is not there, he
emphasized. The Department of Education and Early Development
may wish to speak to this point, he commented.
Number 1157
CHAIR GATTO posed a worst-case scenario of a school that only
has ten kids, five of which go to boarding school, and five are
left. Then $250,000 is [still available] to run the school. He
explained that he is using figures he got from the situation in
Central, where the community only had eight students, it
advertised for two additional kids to attend school there; two
additional students did enroll and Central received $250,000 in
funding. Chair Gatto said his concern is that a community could
get down to just two kids and the state would still have to put
up the money to run the entire school.
Number 1205
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that the Department of
Education and Early Development does have discretion to allow or
disallow that kind of situation to occur.
CHAIR GATTO went on to say in the extreme of this scenario, a
mother, who would normally home school her kids, could enroll
them in the school, become the teacher, and get $250,000 to
educate her children.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL told the members that it is his hope that
a system will remain in place where a student who could excel
and cannot get a science or mathematics class is able to go to a
boarding school such as the those he has mentioned today. If
there were a family with four students [from a small community
and all of them chose to go to boarding school], he said he
believes the district would be in trouble.
Number 1346
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Section 2 and asked if there
is language that clarifies that reimbursement is only made for
students who live outside of the district where he/she attends
boarding school. He pointed to page 3 [V. Budgets and Allowable
Costs, A. WITHIN DISTRICT] of the backup materials, where it
says:
For students attending school within their home
district, costs (including indirect costs) of
placement supervision, counseling and program
administration are the responsibility of the school
district.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if a student comes from outside the
district would costs, stipends, and airfare be reimbursed.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that he would like the department
to respond to that question. He said he would be curious how
the department and district would handle a situation where a
student who lives in Nenana wants to attend the boarding school
because for example, there are problems within the family.
Number 1491
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON posed a hypothetical question involving
the Kenai Peninsula School District. He asked how reimbursement
would work for a student who lives in Port Graham and who wanted
to attend a boarding school in Seldovia if one existed there.
He commented that as he reads Section 2, it appears the district
would get the per student allocation plus the costs and airfare
reimbursement. However, according to page three of the backup
materials, it appears that the district would not get any of the
costs paid, he said. Representative Seaton asked if that point
should be clarified in the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that he hopes the department
would be given discretion in determining reimbursement.
Number 1540
CHAIR GATTO posed a hypothetical question to Representative
Coghill where a student who lives in Nenana, wants to go to the
boarding school in Galena. Is there a restriction that a
student must attend the boarding school closest to the student's
residence, or may the student attend any boarding school he/she
chooses, he asked.
CHAIR GATTO commented that the committee has always been
supportive of offering alternatives in education, as well as,
making what is in place work as well as it can. It may be
important to offer alternatives to some kids, he suggested.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that there are many variables and
for that reason he believes the statute should be broad, and the
application should allow the [department] discretion.
CHAIR GATTO told the members that he just received a report
entitled "Certificate of Information Submitted on Boarding Home
Reports" in which it says that some students do not have daily
access to a school with the appropriate grade level. He said
that while the language is a bit confusing, the point is well
made that a student could be in a community that has a boarding
school, but not have the appropriate grade level available to
the student which in turn could require the student to go
somewhere else.
Number 1691
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that many districts are
experiencing a problem of declining enrollment and therefore,
less funding. He asked if any consideration has been given to
the thought that this bill may provide an incentive to
"poaching" [students].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that there is a balance. He
explained that the communities of Nenana and Galena have put up
a significant amount of their own resources to establish better
educational opportunities. He commented that those two schools
look for people who can make the most progress, whether it is at
the top or bottom of the educational spectrum. Representative
Coghill told the members that in Nenana's case many of the
students who attend there are troubled, regardless of whether
the student was from Anchorage or a small village. Nenana's
intent is for students to excel both academically and socially.
He said he could not speak to the other schools' policies.
Number 1854
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if transportation and stipend costs
are the only expenses not currently being paid to boarding
schools.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that the costs covered are one
round trip ticket for transportation and a stipend for room and
board.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what the average cost of these
expenses are.
Number 1890
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that the costs may vary, but an
average would be about $450 [per month].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that he would be more sympathetic
for this option being available to students who are having a
hard time finding an educational environment to thrive in. He
asked if there is a way to refrain from spending this kind of
money on kids who are doing well. He said he does not see any
language in the bill that would differentiate between students.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that he is inclined to agree with
Representative Gara. However, in thinking it through, he said,
there could be a student who wants the opportunity to thrive in
a smaller school. He said he does not believe this option
should be limited to only those who are deficient in social or
academic attributes. He told the members that in Nenana and
Galena there is a strong cultural and academic emphasis.
Representative Coghill stated that he believes it should be an
option available for students who wish to attend, and would be
uncomfortable inserting language that requires a student to be
in great need in order to be enrolled. Representative Coghill
pointed out that some of the better achievers who are doing well
in Nenana, for example, did not have the educational opportunity
in their home community.
Number 2033
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested establishing a certificate of need
procedure that the local school official would have to complete
to substantiate that the student would do better at a boarding
school might be merited. He said he has a problem with students
that are going to a boarding school for the luxury of choice.
Representative Gara pointed out that $500 per month for an
eight-month school year is $4,000 that he believes will come out
of public education [funding] somewhere else.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that he would defer to the
school districts who have had students apply for this option.
He said he believes the [boarding] schools have had more
applicants apply than the schools are able accept. The schools
are pretty much funding these programs on their own dime. He
commented that if he understands it correctly, the schools do
receive some travel money now. Representative Coghill
reiterated that he believes the qualification process would be
better spoken to by the districts who have already been through
this process.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that with the laws of
unintended consequences there can be good news and bad news. He
said, for instance, that there could be a student who is bright
and wants to go to a boarding school, so all he has to do is
fail the tests, and that would qualify him to attend the
boarding school.
CHAIR GATTO commented that there is legislation [HB 390] which
deals with the length of a school year and the flexibility in
allowing students to attend classes seven days in a row if the
school desires that kind of schedule. He told the members when
he talked with Nenana and Galena boarding schools there was
tremendous support for that idea. It would enable the students
to finish their classes in a shorter period of time, while at
the same time allow the school to offer another group of
students the opportunity to enroll in the program. He added
that it is possible to find some economies in using flexible
scheduling. The bill that would allow this flexibility has not
passed the legislature yet, he added.
CHAIR GATTO referred to Representative Gara's concerns that this
bill might create a situation where it is robbing Peter to pay
Paul. The school districts might object, he said.
Number 2211
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reminded the members that there are
133,000 students in public education, and this bill would affect
around 340 students. This is only a niche, he emphasized. He
told the members that many of the questions raised in the
hearing today would be addressed through the admissions process
and the memorandum of agreement that the Department of Education
and Early Development would provide. He said he believes that
the districts who have been involved in this process and the
department should have significant input.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she shares some of the concerns
expressed with respect to funding losses in school districts.
Historically kids were sent to boarding schools on a routine
basis, but it was decided that it had a negative impact. The
state then provided high schools for small communities so
students could attend in their communities. However, Mt.
Edgecumbe remained a boarding school. There is the thought that
some students do benefit from a boarding school environment. It
may be that the student is removed from a bad situation.
Representative Wilson told the members that many students are
sent to Mt. Edgecumbe by parents who want a better education for
their children, not because their children are in trouble. She
shared that she teaches classes for seniors in all the high
schools in her district, and she cannot believe the difference
in the knowledge students at Mt. Edgecumbe possess over those of
the other high schools. These kids are in a contained
environment on campus, and the level of supervision and
instruction is high.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she has talked with
[administrators] from Nenana and Galena who shared the desire to
continue to operate boarding schools. She told the members that
this is really a policy question. The state already has a
stated-run boarding school and it works. She asked
Representative Coghill what the capacity is for each of the
schools.
Number 2487
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that he believes Nenana has about
75 students; however he will confirm that number. He suggested
that the Department of Education and Early Development may have
the head count in boarding schools. He said when considering
this issue as a policy call, it is important to note that these
communities have provided some of the resources. There may have
been the desire to get state funding, but he would not call the
schools' motives into questions because it is clear a need was
identified. He pointed out that in Nenana's case there was a
large building that was empty and the community saw a need that
could be filled. Nenana also started a cyber school and used
some of the funds to support the boarding school program;
however, once the district found out, the administrator was
fired and the district made some serious corrections.
Representative Coghill told the members that there is no doubt
that a boarding school environment gives those involved a
comradery and a sense of mission to achieve academic excellence.
Nenana is committed to its school and has searched for funding
through local, state, federal, and nonprofit organizations. He
commented that he believes Galena is the same way, but could not
comment on the other boarding schools in Alaska.
Number 2671
HARRY WHITE, Principal, Project Education Residential School
(PERS), Galena School District, testified in support of HB 425
and answered questions from the members. He told the members
that PERS allows students an opportunity to get an education
that is not available in the students' home community. Over 200
students applied last year and only 83 were enrolled due to
space constraints. He explained that the school does not
"poach" students; students apply [without solicitation]. The
school has been successful in that every student who attended
last year opted to return. There is also a high rate of
attendance by siblings. Mr. White explained that PERS is a
grade 9 through 12 school. Every student who attends one or two
years, regardless of his/her home community, achieves higher
grades. One example of progress that has been made is in a
class that started with a 7 percent passage of language arts and
4 percent passage of math, and through PERS the class
achievement level has been raised to 58 percent passage of
language arts and 52 percent passage of math, he said.
Number 2763
MR. WHITE told the committee that upon graduation from high
school, the school also offers vocational certification in
mechanics, culinary arts, and aviation courses for a solo pilot
license. All of these vocational certifications can be followed
up with classes at University of Alaska Anchorage for further
certifications and degrees. He commented that six students just
graduated last week from the school's cosmetology course with
national certification. Many of these courses are the students'
13th and 14th year of education.
MR. WHITE shared that 85 percent of the PERS graduates have gone
on to full time employment or some form of postsecondary
education. He said he believes that is an excellent record
because most of the students come from the villages.
MR. WHITE explained that the cost of providing this education is
over $26,000 per student. The community and soft money provides
over $20,000 per student for the education the students are
provided. He emphasized that PERS is already educating the
students, raising scores, getting students into college, and
providing vocational training so that students may get jobs.
Number 2850
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the capacity of the boarding
school is 83 students.
MR. WHITE responded that there is more space available in the
dorm facility, but the community can only afford a certain
number of students. He explained that the classroom capacity is
between 70 and 75 students; however, PERS shuttles students back
and forth to the city school three miles away to provide for
more students. In response to Representative Wilson's inquiry
Mr. White clarified that the boarding school capacity is more
than 100, but the school capacity is about 70 to 75 students.
Number 2932
CHAIR GATTO asked if the school can only accommodate 75
students, but the dormitory can hold 100, why would PERS bus
[kids to classes].
MR. WHITE responded that busing is used to make the difference
between the 75 and 100 students and still provide the education
that is requested.
CHAIR GATTO asked for further clarification.
MR. WHITE explained that all 83 students live in the dormitory.
The school has arranged the class schedule to accommodate [the
shortage in classroom space]. The school buses students to [the
public school] to offer additional elective classes like
woodworking. The scheduling arrangement allows PERS to provide
an education to more students in one year, he added.
Number 2960
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON posed a hypothetical question where PERS
had 100 students in the dormitory, while the classrooms'
capacity was 75. He asked if he is correct in projecting that
in order to make that arrangement work PERS would be adding 25
students to the local school.
TAPE 04-12, SIDE B
MR. WHITE explained that the students obtain all of their
academic classes at PERS and the elective classes at the other
location.
Number 2948
EDDIE JEANS, Finance Manager, School Finance and Facilities
Section, Department of Education and Early Development,
testified on HB 425 and answered questions from the members. He
said he believes that the members are trying to ascertain how
the number of students that can be housed at the boarding
school, could be educated. He explained that in Galena there is
the Galena public school and also the residential program where
facilities that were formerly the old air force base are being
used. He asked Mr. White to confirm that this is correct.
MR. WHITE responded that Mr. Jeans is correct. The Galena
public school is three miles away from the [former] air force
base where the Galena Residential School is located.
MR. JEANS explained that the Galena Residential School is using
a variety of facilities for the educational component of these
students. The capacity of the residential component is 100
students. He said that what he believes Mr. White is saying is
that even though PERS is only serving 83 students; the capacity
for residential students is 100. Due to financial constraints
Galena is not moving toward the 100-student capacity. He told
the members it is the intention of PERS to continue to share the
educational programs with the Galena city school.
Number 2877
CHAIR GATTO asked for additional clarification on residential
students' attendance.
MR. JEANS explained that both schools are part of the City of
Galena's school district, even though the programs are discussed
as independent units.
CHAIR GATTO asked how many students are in the Galena school
district.
MR. JEANS replied that he is not sure, but would provide that
information for the committee.
MR. WHITE responded that he is not sure either because the
district has a kindergarten through grade 12 facility.
CHAIR GATTO asked if the city school is larger than the
residential school.
MR. WHITE responded that the city school is larger, but
emphasized that it is not just a high school. He explained that
only 10 or 11 students are bused over to the city school to
receive vocational electives. There are not a large number of
students going to the city school from the residential school,
he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA prefaced his question by saying that he
missed the first portion of Mr. White's testimony, and asked if
he understood correctly that Mr. White said running the
residential school puts the school in the red by about $20,000
per student.
Number 2822
MR. WHITE responded that is correct. It costs PERS $26,000 per
student to run the residential school. This cost covers room,
board, staffing, travel, and utilities.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked how much the school is compensated by
the state.
MR. WHITE replied that the school gets about $5,700 per student.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Jeans if this bill would provide
that extra [$20,000] per student.
MR. JEANS replied that it would not provide $20,000 per student.
He said that based on the department's fiscal note the school
would generate $551,000 for 91 students, or approximately $6,000
per student. He explained that even though Galena's boarding
school was originally started as a boarding school, the district
receives state funding for students that attend school in the
boarding program, but the funding is just the foundation
funding. The school attempted to use state funds that were
generated through other programs to help supplement the boarding
school program. However, the charter school legislation was
amended a year or two later which said that state funds could
not be used to support a boarding program. This legislation put
the school in a "catch-22" position where the school started
under one premise and then the rules changed. He told the
members that Galena is using other resources and local funds to
support their program.
Number 2641
MR. JEANS explained that the other piece of the dilemma for
boarding schools is that if a student does not have daily access
to a secondary program, then the state will provide a boarding
stipend. In Galena's case, there are eight students who come
from St. George out in the Pribilof Islands. St. George only
offers a K-8 program out there so the state pays Galena a
monthly stipend. Mr. Jeans explained that this legislation
would provide for the state to pay monthly stipends to all kids
in Galena for this pilot program and then see what the impacts
are. He commented that this program would also apply to Nenana.
Nenana currently has less than five students who qualify for the
boarding stipend because those kids do not have access [to
grades 9 through 12] in their home communities. Mr. Jeans
summarized that all this legislation does is say that if a
student wants to attend a residential program, then the state
would pay a boarding stipend while the student attended there.
Number 2605
MR. JEANS emphasized that one should not compare Galena to
Nenana to Mt. Edgecumbe because each program is extremely
different. A student may elect to go to Mt. Edgecumbe because
he/she wants to get ready for college and it is known that Mt.
Edgecumbe prepares students for college. Another student may
want to go to Galena because of the [nationally accredited]
cosmetology course or pilot training where there is a flight
simulator. The programs are vastly different, but what is being
discussed is providing some assistance in covering some of the
residential costs for those kids who choose to go to these
boarding programs.
CHAIR GATTO asked if a boarding school is taking in $6,000 [per
student] and the cost is $20,000, how does it stay in business.
MR. WHITE responded that the additional funds are obtained from
soft-money grants, local money, and other funds from the
district.
CHAIR GATTO responded that in other words, it is costing Galena
more money to run the program than what is being provided by the
state; and the district is using other money to pay the
difference.
MR. WHITE agreed that money is being taken from other areas to
maintain the program. The main benefit is that Galena is seeing
students succeeding that had very little opportunity to succeed.
The question that is starting to be asked year by year is how
long can Galena continue to do this without additional help.
CHAIR GATTO stated that Galena School District is a benevolent
association whose primary goal is to watch kids succeed and is
willing to put up its own money no matter where the kids come
from.
Number 2433
MR. WHITE responded that Galena's primary mission is to educate
students and if the chairman wishes to place "benevolent" upon
it, then it will gladly be accepted.
Number 2428
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how long Galena has been offering a
boarding school program.
MR. WHITE told the committee that this is the school's seventh
year.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what the norm is for students who
graduate from Galena.
MR. WHITE explained that the cosmetology school is just getting
off the ground, and there were six students who graduated from
cosmetology this year. Only four of the six graduated from
Galena, the other two graduated from other high schools, he
added. He reiterated that the 13th and 14th [grade] course
offerings, which are funded by grants, have just started so he
does not have a percent available.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if state funds for the boarding
school program are now or could in the future be redirected to
support the vocational program also.
MR. WHITE responded that funds that come from the state for the
residential program would be used to appropriately fund the
academic programs.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked under the current program,
approximately how much money is being spent per student to
provide an education for the eight kids [from St. George] who go
to the Galena residential school.
MR. JEANS commented that this proposed legislation mirrors the
current program. The dollar amounts reflected on the fiscal
note, of a $577 monthly stipend is what the state is paying for
each of those eight children.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that if this legislation passes, Galena
will get roughly $6,000 for boarding expenses and $6,000 for the
base student allocation. That would still leave Galena
responsible for $14,000 for each student. He asked Mr. White if
this kind of appropriation would allow Galena to continue to
operate for the long term.
Number 2258
MR. WHITE replied that Galena has enough money to run another
year or so. If the school were to receive the additional money
it would mean Galena could go on longer and possibly increase
the number of students enrolled.
Number 2235
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Jeans how much funding is
provided to Mt. Edgecumbe per student.
MR. JEANS replied that he would have to get that information for
her. He added that Mt. Edgecumbe's residential component is
built into the state budget because it is a state-run school.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she would like to know for comparison
purposes.
MR. JEANS acknowledged that the residential schools being
discussed today are costing the state less than what Mt.
Edgecumbe is costing the state.
CHAIR GATTO stated that the cost per student at Mt. Edgecumbe is
approximately $20,000 and one round trip [transportation
allowance from the student's home] each year. He said the true
cost of running a residential school is close to that figure.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she would like to see these schools
funded in a way that would ensure they stay open for more than
just two years. It would be nice to know if these programs are
working.
CHAIR GATTO commented that Mr. White told the members that the
school also has soft-money through grants.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Jeans if the Department of
Education and Early Development has had on-site reviews of the
educational programs and are the programs [accredited].
Number 2100
MR. JEANS replied that the department has not done a field audit
of these schools; however, he is sure that Representative Wilson
has seen the brochures. The Lower-Kuskokwim Bethel area has a
boarding school that brings kids in from the outlying
communities. There is also the Nome-Beltz School which he is
not quite sure of because it is not the typical 180-day program.
It is a two-week program of intensive courses where kids are
brought in from the Bering Straits School District and then the
kids go back home. He said he does not believe that school
would fit in this mix, but will wait for direction from the
legislature on that.
Number 2049
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked Mr. White to elaborate on the soft-
money funds that he referred to. Are home school funds used at
PERS, he asked.
MR. WHITE responded that PERS is part of the Galena City School
District of which there are three programs, the city school,
PERS, and Interior Distance Education of Alaska (IDEA). He told
the members that PERS has a grant writer who is working on a
grant now that should provide some assistance.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if some of the funds [which are
subsidizing PERS] are from the home school program.
MR. WHITE responded that most of the additional money need to
run PERS has been coming from soft money. For example, the
resiliency grant is a very large grant PERS gets for retention
of students into a residential program. He said that PERS'
success ratio will mean that the grant will awarded to them
again this year. That is the largest grant PERS gets and is a
big part of the funding, he said.
Number 1926
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Jeans to address the language in
the bill [on page 1, line 14 and page 2, line 1] which specifies
that a district would have to have been operating a secondary
boarding school program prior to January 1, 2004.
MR. JEANS said it is his understanding that Representative
Coghill wanted to create a pilot program for those districts
that are currently running residential boarding schools. He
added that is why the attachment to the fiscal note shows
districts and communities which the department has identified
that have programs in place. Mr. Jeans added that is also why
he mentioned the Nome-Beltz's program differences and asked for
legislative direction. Mr. Jeans assured the committee that
some of the details could be spelled out in regulations and
would not have to be written into statute. He reiterated that
the purpose for the language is that Representative Coghill
wanted this to be a pilot program which would be evaluated after
a number of years.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that as he reads the statutory
language it does not distinguish where the students come from;
however, in the copy of the memorandum of agreement it says that
if the students are coming from within the district, the student
will not receive any money. So this would be an incentive to
attract students from outside of the district and no incentive
to provide the services to students within the district, he
added.
Number 1793
MR. JEANS replied that the memorandum of understanding that
Representative Seaton is looking at is the current agreement
based on current regulations. It says if a student does not
have daily access to a secondary program, then the student
qualifies for a boarding home stipend. For example, in the
Pribilof Islands the school district is operating a Kindergarten
to eighth grade program in St. George. He told the members that
the high school students in that district could go anywhere in
the state, and the state would pay boarding stipends. Mr. Jeans
commented that years ago kids from this district use to go to
school in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District. He
explained that the majority of students that are attending
boarding school in Bethel are students from the Lower Kuskokwim
region. Under the current program these students will not
qualify [for a boarding stipend] for two reasons. First, the
students are from within the district, and second, all of their
communities are providing Kindergarten through 12th grade
programs.
MR. JEANS further explained that this proposal would allow
students who wish a more diverse course offering [to have that
opportunity], and to assist those districts in bringing kids in
and get some assistance with a boarding school program.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Jeans to clarify that the intent
of this bill is to allow students, whether from within or
outside of a school district, to enroll in a residential program
and have a boarding stipend and other costs [paid for by the
state].
MR. JEANS agreed that is his understanding of the bill.
Number 1665
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON summarized that currently the law says
that the only students who would qualify [to attend residential
programs] are those who live in communities that do not offer
9th through 12th grades in their district. This bill would
allow any student to apply to a boarding school program.
Representative Wilson posed a hypothetical question that if
parents in Wrangell believed their child was running with the
wrong group of kids, could that student be enrolled in a
boarding school program.
Number 1643
MR. JEANS responded that could happen. He offered an example
that there could be a student that wants to be a cosmetologist
and that training is probably not available in Wrangell.
Number 1628
CHAIR GATTO announced that HB 425 would be held in committee.
HB 333-PUBLIC SCHOOL ENDOWMENT
Number 1590
CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 333, "An Act relating to an endowment for public
education; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1583
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to adopt CS HB 333, 23-LS0991\U as the
working document.
CHAIR GATTO noted that Representatives Wilson and Coghill are
co-sponsors of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN OGG, Alaska State Legislature, testified as
sponsor of CS HB 333. He told the members that he represents
the Kodiak Island and north end of the Lake and Peninsula
Borough and is a former regent of the University of Alaska for
eight and one-half years.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG explained that this bill really has to do
with how education is funded and provided some historical
perspective. In 1634 the Massachusetts colony granted the
community of Dorchester, Thompson's Island. Four years later
the rents, fees, and royalties from that island were dedicated
to a free school. In 1670, the Plymouth colony followed suit
and enacted the first ordinance in America which said that
profits should annually accrue to the colony for fishing with
nets in Cape Cod for mackerel, bass, or herring, and those funds
would be dedicated for a free school. The following year a
teacher came to the colony by the name of Thomas Hinkley and the
colony provided those fishing profits [for education purposes].
At the same time, the colony dedicated the profits and benefits
from two former-Indian tribal lands to run the school.
Number 1384
REPRESENTATIVE OGG went on to say that in 1861 the Moral Act was
passed which said that America felt higher education was so
important that it authorized the giving of land in western
states to setup land-grant colleges.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said when Alaska became a territory it came
under this act, he said. In 1917 the University of Alaska
Fairbanks became Alaska's land grant college. As such, the
lands in Alaska were available to them. The one catch with the
federal government was that the land had to be surveyed before
the land could be obtained. During the territorial days and up
until statehood the amount of lands that were surveyed and the
sections in them that were dedicated to schools or colleges
ended up being a total of 115,000 acres. During statehood
discussions there was always the intent to get the land to the
University of Alaska to fulfill the land grant. In 1959 when
the statehood compact was signed, the land grant was left out.
There was some discussion because Alaska was unique and the
federal government gave the state 103 million acres with the
thought that perhaps the [university land grant] should come out
of this 103 million acres.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG told the members that during Governor Egan's
administration there was a bill that passed the legislature to
give the University of Alaska a land grant, and it was vetoed.
The land grant issue remained dormant for some time, until the
1990s when two regents for the University of Alaska, Lew
Williams, Jr. and Joseph Henry, worked hard for a land grant.
Representative Ogg commented that he worked with them. He told
the members that three land grant bills made it through the
legislature during that time, and each one was vetoed.
Number 1128
REPRESENTATIVE OGG went on to say that in 2000, the last land
grant bill, SB 7, was vetoed. It was a historic time because
the legislature over-rode the governor's veto. However, the
governor declared that the over-ride of his veto was not valid
because the legislature did not have enough votes as he deemed
the legislation to be an appropriation which requires a three-
quarter vote to over-ride his veto. In January of this year,
the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that was not the case. The bill
was not an appropriation and the legislature was only required
to have the two-thirds vote so the vote [in over riding the
governor's veto] was upheld. However, what the judge said was
that because there was a conservation group who had joined the
law suit at the lower court and had put forth the question as to
whether this bill was an unconstitutional dedication of state
funds, the Alaska Supreme Court said it would not decide that
issue because it had not been brought up to them; so that case
went back to the superior court where it sits today to decide
that issue. SB 7 gave an actual physical grant of land to the
university of 250,000 acres. The bill lays out a schematic
about how the university would work with the Department of
Natural Resources to pick these lands. When the lands are
selected it must then come back to the legislature for approval.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG pointed out that the reason for this is that
when a specific grant of land is selected then it will "gore
someone's ox", he said. When the bills came through in the
1990s the miners were very upset that potential mining lands
might end up in the hands of the university. At other times it
would be the timber industry that would be upset, he said.
Representative Ogg added that sometimes it would be supporters
of the university that did not believe the university should be
involved in developing land and it was their desire the land
stay in a pristine state.
Number 1046
REPRESENTATIVE OGG reiterated that the university does not have
its full land grant because it is tied up in court. He
explained that HB 333 is a little different from other
legislation that has been brought forward. He explained that
this bill creates a tenancy in common with the State of Alaska.
He posed the following hypothetical example to demonstrate how a
tenancy in common works. He said imagine that a grandfather
decided that he wanted his grandchildren to have some land and
willed it to all of his grandchildren equally. For example, if
there were eight grandchildren, each grandchild owned one-eighth
of that land, but there is no way for that grandchild to go out
on the land and say, this piece of land is mine, because the
land is owned in common. If the grandfather knew that he had a
couple of grandchildren who were spendthrifts and did not want
them to manage the land, he then arranged for one grandchild to
manage the land and the other grandchildren would benefit
equally from the land. Representative Ogg stated that is what
this bill does.
Number 0995
REPRESENTATIVE OGG told the members that this bill would provide
for the land to stay under the management of the State of Alaska
and the university would end up owning one percent of all state
land as a tenancy in common. There is a caveat that when land
is given in the example provided, that the non-managing party
acquires the right over the managing tenant, the managing tenant
has a fiduciary duty to be a good steward of the property. He
explained that in this bill that fiduciary duties does not
apply. The reason that language was inserted is to ensure that
the University of Alaska is not looking over the shoulder of the
Department of Natural Resources and trying to make decisions on
the management of the land. The idea is to get the land to the
university as a tenancy in common and have the monies flow to
the university, he said.
Number 0884
REPRESENTATIVE OGG pointed out that parts of the bill set out
what funds would actually flow to the university, because some
might think the university would get one percent of the oil and
gas, mining, or land sales revenues. This language ensures that
the university does not get revenues from the existing flow; it
would only receive revenues from new leases or new sales. This
would not impact the state from its current revenue sources.
Number 0846
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said the language in Section 1 and 2 is just
enabling language. Section 3 is a new section which establishes
the fund. Section 4 sets out powers and duties for
commissioners and how the fund will function.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG told the members that Sec. 14.40.499, on page
4, says how the fund would be administered and establishes the
board.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that Sec. 14.40.501 sets out the duties
and powers of the fund. He pointed out that on page 5 there is
a new section [Sec. 14.40.505] that says how funding flows from
state lands.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG told the members that in Sec. 14.40.507 there
is language which conveys the land to the university as a
tenancy in common.
Number 0704
REPRESENTATIVE OGG pointed to a change in wording between
version U and the original bill which is on page 4, line 10. He
explained that for many years there was a "President" of the
board of regents and has since been changed to "Chair" of the
board of regents. Version U changes that wording to "chair" of
the board, he reiterated.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG told the members that there was a suggestion
from the University of Alaska to "use the percentage of market
value" so that the money that comes out of the fund flows at a
rate of 5 percent on an annual basis which is delineated in Sec.
14.40.503.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said Sec. 14.40.507, page 5, lines 16 through
19, provides language that removes the fiduciary responsibility
so the state can manage the land unimpeded.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG summarized that there may be some slight
changes in language to ensure the bill reflects the intent he
has described to the members.
Number 0550
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked to be directed to the language that
provides for one percent of state land to be transferred as
tenants in common.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG directed Representative Gara to page 5, line
13. He commented that the language is inarticulate and will
have to be redrafted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked how the one percent of state land
compares to the 250,000 acres in the last land grant.
Number 0462
REPRESENTATIVE OGG responded that one percent of state land
would be about 1,004,000 acres. He reminded the members that
the land cannot be divided because it is a tenancy in common.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked how Representative Ogg came up with
one million acres.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG thanked Representative Gara for bringing that
question before the committee because when providing a history
of land grants, he did not mention an important point. He
explained that this legislation is different from other land
grant acts in that it is his desire to fund both the university
and kindergarten through 12th grades. He said both of those two
educational entities would benefit from the university's land
grant. He explained that is the reason the number of acres is
higher. One other reason the number is higher is that when
starting with nothing this endowment is really a pass to the
next generation. Representative Ogg said probably by 2013 there
will be about $3 to $4 million a year. He commented that he
does not have the exact figure, but said it takes a while for
the funds to build up. Representative Ogg used a past example
of state oil revenues that began in the 1960s through to the
present where the state has received about $52 billion. That is
the total amount of revenue, he said. If one percent of that
$52 billion had gone into this fund there would be about $520
million in the fund. That figure covers a 35-year period, he
added. If it had been managed as the permanent fund has, it
would be a billion dollar account. Five percent of that billion
dollars would provide $50 million for education. If using those
figures into the future, 25 or 30 years down the road, $25
million would go to kindergarten through 12th grade and $25
million for the university system on an annual basis.
Representative Ogg said it is not a lot, but it helps.
Number 0196
REPRESENTATIVE GARA commented that there is land that he would
not want to see conveyed away from public ownership. He said he
believes it is amazing that a person can walk up and down a
stream and fish or raft it. He said he believes that among the
lands that are most precious to Alaskans are the stream bank
lands and other recreational lands. The Department of Natural
Resources has done a good job over the years in protecting
stream bank lands, he commented. He asked if Representative Ogg
would be willing to include language that would ensure that the
state would not give away public access to the Kenai River or
other cherished public lands.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG commented that this kind of language could be
included in the bill; however, in doing so it would change the
legislation from a tenancy in common to that of an individual
land grant to the university. He pointed out that SB 7 actually
provided for specific land to be granted to the university.
Representative Ogg reminded the members that there will be land
that will gore your ox; a miner will have land that will gore
his ox, and that is why this bill does not go in that direction.
This bill leaves the authority to manage the lands with the
State of Alaska in the Department of Natural Resources through
the public hearing and public notice process to dispose of and
develop land. He added that the point of the language which
relieves the department of fiduciary responsibility would ensure
that the university would not come to the state and argue that
the department is not managing the land to benefit the
university in the way it wishes.
TAPE 04-13, SIDE A
Number 0095
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked about the language in Section 2,
page 2, lines 26 through 28, where it says:
and any other land owned by the University of Alaska
is not and may not be treated as state public domain
land.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Representative Ogg to explain the
meaning of the designation "state public domain land." He asked
if the lands cannot be treated as public domain lands, what
restrictions are put upon them by that clause.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG responded that the University of Alaska has
some lands already. The university is not under the
jurisdiction of the State of Alaska as to how those lands which
it possesses are developed. He pointed out that is the purpose
of land grants. It allows that the university have an
independent source of income by managing the land to make some
extra money, he said. Representative Ogg pointed to the
following language in bold [on page 2, line 25 and 26]:
land conveyed to the state and the University of
Alaska under AS 14.40.507,
REPRESENTATIVE OGG told the members that that language will most
likely be deleted.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 5 where there is language
about a conveyance and selection process. He said he knows the
members are aware of the difficulty that was experienced during
the Native and state land selections process. Representative
Seaton asked if it would be acceptable to change the tack to
take one percent of revenues generated from state lands and in
that way avoid the selection process which would be difficult
and expensive.
Number 0331
REPRESENTATIVE OGG replied that what Representative Seaton is
suggesting is exactly what this bill would do. There is no
selection process with this legislation, he said. The
university ends up owning one percent of all the land, but it is
an undivided one percent portion of the land. In other words,
there is no actual physical land transferred, only a right that
is transferred.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 5, lines 11 through 12,
which reads:
The commissioner of natural resources shall convey to
the University of Alaska...
Number 0426
REPRESENTATIVE OGG added that it also says "the State of
Alaska." He commented that this language needs to be clarified.
Representative Ogg explained that the language should say that
the land is conveyed, the university owns one percent, and the
State of Alaska owns 99 percent. The land is owned together, he
stated. The tenancy is common. He commented that he has been
talking with Bob Loeffler about clarifying the language.
Number 0542
JOSEPH BEEDLE, Vice President for Finance, University of Alaska
Systems, testified in HB 333. He told the members that as a
land grant university they are familiar with the mechanism and
support this endowment to help fund education. Federal land
grant efforts date back to 1915 and 1929 when the federal
government attempted to transfer 360,000 acres to the
university. Unfortunately, less than one-third was transferred
because of survey delays and the fact that the Alaska Statehood
Act did not complete the commitment.
MR. BEEDLE said these facts place Alaska last in all land grant
universities or college states. For example, New Mexico
received 1.3 million acres, Oklahoma received 1 million acres,
New York received 1 million acres, Arizona received 850,000
acres, Pennsylvania received 780,000 acres, and the University
of Alaska received in the range of 115,000 acres. He told the
members that Alaska is ranked 48th in amount of land grant
volume received and has not received parity of other states.
Mr. Beedle told the members that the one percent land grant is a
minimal approach because of the shrinkage of revenues available
to the university because much of the revenue is dedicated, such
as the 25 percent mineral resources revenues going to the Alaska
Permanent Fund.
MR. BEEDLE went on to say:
Referring briefly to the legislative research document
projections for new resource revenue, we appreciate
over a 25-year estimated time period that there could
be $34 billion accumulated in nominal terms. One
percent for education, $342 million over that life
time for an average of $13.7 million or a split of
$6.8 [million] with K-12. I would agree that that
could average, in terms of the POMV approach, $15 to
$20 million in the year 2030. So looking out 25 years
from now, we could, in fact, have earnings off of
those endowed proceeds of approximately between $15
and $20 million.
I would note that the backup schedules provided by
legislative research [Legislative Research Report
Number 04.176, dated March 1, 2004] from the
Department of Revenue shows that it is 2012 when you
assume all four: ANWR, Beaufort Sea, Central North
Slope, NPRA ... all four have to work. Then the gas
line has to come on for us to reach $100 million
(indisc.) if all those things work.
Under the concept of $100 million, if I was asked to
do a fiscal note for the university, I would be
assuming then $100 million to the state. And again,
that does not start to occur under this Department of
Revenue forecast until 2012, $100 million, K-12 gets
$500,000 and the university gets $500,000. So we
assume the stream is static, a stream of $500,000 per
year. Because of prudent investments and percentage
of market draws, we only have $5,000 at the end of the
second year to spend because you would assume 20
percent, so one-fifth, five years averaging of the
$500,000 of the five percent earnings. So in year six
we would have that first contribution where all the
money was invested, $500,000 per year for five years,
equals $2.5 million. At year six then that average
for the five years would be $1.5 [million], so we
would receive $75,000 in year six. In year ten,
assuming again, the minimalistic, $100 million per
year at one percent to K-12 and the university, we
would enjoy $200,000 per year in year 11. So it
certainly pales in comparison to our total needs for
state general funds and it would beg the question: is
one percent, in fact, enough. Should it be raised to
say maybe four percent or so to roughly the equivalent
of something meaningful.
Number 1018
MR. BEEDLE told the members that the university currently
administers its own land grant development and conversion
process, but has no objection to having the Department of
Natural Resources administer the universities tenancy in common
ownership proposed under this bill. Currently the university
has a land grant trust endowment which is in statute and it has
used the percent of market value (POMV) process since 1996, so
five percent of the average five year balance is paid out, he
said. Mr. Beedle summarized his comments by saying the
university supports HB 333 and offered to work with the sponsor
to address some of the technical aspects of the bill.
Number 1112
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if the state kindergarten through 12th
grade and university budgets are approximately $1 billion.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG responded that it is close to that.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked what the benefit is in obtaining funds
through revenue of state lands, as opposed to just requesting it
from the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG replied that the bill recognizes a historical
trend in this country that supports land grant universities to
provide an independent revenue source. This independent revenue
provides some independence from the political process. Not a
lot, he said, but a little bit. He said that another reason to
pursue this is that this is a federal program that was
established and it is fulfilling a promise made to the state, as
the university lands were included in the 104 million acres
[given to the state by the federal government].
Number 1269
REPRESENTATIVE OGG told the members that when the governor was a
U.S. Senator he put in matching land grant bills, that if the
state gave a grant to the university, then the federal
government would "pony up." What happened then was that the
same "oxen were being gored." If the state does this and
fulfills the state land grant, then the U.S. Senators could look
at this and say here is a way to fulfill the federal promise for
the land grant. He added that the amount of money that would
flow from the federal side far exceeds what the state monies
would be.
Number 1314
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Loeffler if the state lands
managed by the Department of Natural Resources would be managed
any differently than it is today if this legislation were to
pass.
Number 1325
BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Land, and Water,
Department of Natural Resources, testified on HB 333 and
answered questions from the members. Mr. Loeffler responded
that it would be fair to say that there would not be changes.
He added that there have been some errors in drafting the bill
which are being addressed. He explained that as long as those
errors are corrected, it is transparent to the department as to
where the revenue goes. The intention of the bill is for the
department to maintain all of the management authority. Mr.
Loeffler commented that this is really a policy decision for the
committee.
Number 1424
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Loeffler if this land grant
includes subsurface rights, because that is where the money is
generated. He said his understanding is that the Alaska
Statehood Bill provides that if the state transfers the
subsurface rights [of state lands], then the federal government
takes them back.
MR. LOEFFLER pointed out that this bill would provide one
percent of the revenue for everything. The land is still
managed by the department and the revenue still goes to the
state. He told Representative Seaton that he could contact the
Attorney General's Office for verification, but said he does not
believe that is a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that he would appreciate hearing
back on this point.
CHAIR GATTO announced that HB 333 would be held in committee.
HB 405-SCHOOL PERFORMANCE DESIGNATION/REPORT
Number 1472
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 405, "An Act relating to reports on school and
school district performance; and relating to accountability of
public schools and school districts; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 1498
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to adopt HB 405, 23-LS1533\A, as the
working document. There being no objection, HB 405, version A,
was before the House Special Committee on Education as the
working document.
Number 1535
CHAIR GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, testified as sponsor of
HB 405. He explained that he needs to adopt some conceptual
amendments to address drafting errors.
Number 1571
LES MORSE, Director, Assessment and Accountability, Department
of Education and Early Development, testified on HB 405. He
explained that the one point in this legislation that needs to
be changed is AS 14.03.123(a), on page 3, lines 13 and 14, which
reads:
designation of distinguished, successful, deficient,
or in crisis to each public school and school
district.
MR. MORSE said this legislation was intended to remove that
language and have one accountability system that would be in
compliance with the federal requirements.
Number 1603
CHAIR GATTO told the members that the bill's language would
align state requirements with federal requirements so that two
standards do not have to be met.
Number 1614
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved conceptual Amendment 1 to address
changes in HB 405 language to align state standards in statute
to meet federal standards, as those in the No Child Left Behind
Act. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
[HB 405 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Education meeting was adjourned at 1:00
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|