Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/10/2003 02:56 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 10, 2003
2:56 PM
TAPE HFC 03 - 56, Side A
TAPE HFC 03 - 56, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Harris called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:56 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Bill Stoltze
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Carl Moses
ALSO PRESENT
Kevin Sweeney, Legislative Liaison, Department of Education
and Early Development; Joyce Kitka, Volunteer, Alaska
Association for Community Education; Susan Burke, Juneau;
Kim Garnero, Director, Administrative Services, Department
of Administration; Linda Sylvester, Staff, Representative
Weyhrauch; Rachel Lewis, Unclaimed Property Division,
Department of Revenue; Bruce Johnson, Association of Alaska
School Boards.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Julie Jonas, Four Valleys Community School Program,
Anchorage; Rebecca Reichlin, Girdwood; Jody Liddicout,
Anchorage; Debbie Bogart, Director, Community Schools,
Anchorage; Daryl Farrens, Homer Community School
Coordinator, Homer; Curt Ledford, Director, Community
Schools, Sitka; Robert Boyle, North West Artic Borough
School District.
SUMMARY
HB 109 "An Act relating to the limitation on payment of
state treasury warrants; and providing for an
effective date."
CSHB 109 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee, with
one previously published zero fiscal note from the
Department of Administration, and a "do pass"
recommendation.
HB 165 "An Act relating to community schools; and
providing for an effective date."
HB 165 was HEARD and HELD in Committee.
HB 154 "An Act relating to admission to and advancement
in public schools of children under school age;
and providing for an effective date."
HB 154 was HEARD and HELD in Committee.
HOUSE BILL NO. 165
"An Act relating to community schools; and providing
for an effective date."
KEVIN SWEENEY, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT spoke in support of the legislation.
He noted that the statute was adopted in 1975 to establish a
grant program. He explained that that purpose of the grant
program was to provide financial support to assist local
school districts in establishing community school programs.
He pointed out that every school district currently provides
community school services. He maintained that the amount of
grant funding represents a small percentage of the program
expenditures. He expressed the Administration's belief that
the statute had fulfilled its objective of beginning
community schools programs in each district and stated its
desire to end the grant program.
Mr. Sweeny provided members with a chart illustrating the
current prorated funding formula (copy on file). He also
provided a chart reflecting the percentage of state grants
compared to total expenditures for each district. He
pointed out the example of Valdez, where the State's grant
comprised only .5 percent of program expenditures.
Mr. Sweeny noted that the House Health Education and Social
Services Committee amended the legislation to retain a
statutory reference to a community schools program and
encouraged the continued community use of schools.
Co-Chair Harris observed that the Fairbanks school district
received a $50 thousand grant and expended $180 thousand,
which represented 27 percent as compared to other school
districts who further exceeded their grant amounts. He asked
what accounted for this difference.
Mr. Sweeney speculated that the Fairbanks district did not
account for costs of utilities or collected a different
amount in community fees or other local support. He
maintained the potential to fund larger portions of program
expenditures from sources within the community.
Co-Chair Harris pointed out that the current state budget
did not contain funding for the program and questioned what
would happen if the legislation were not enacted. Mr.
Sweeney estimated that in that case there would be a pro
ration of zero. He reiterated that the Governor feels that
the statute has served its purpose.
Representative Joule noted that some districts indicated a
ratio of 100 percent grant to expenditures. He asked if
this indicated that they received no other funding for the
program.
Mr. Sweeney explained that these were the amounts reported
as being spent on community schools. He again speculated
that some districts did not account for all of their
expenses.
Vice-Chair Meyer questioned if there are villages that are
receiving funding that would not be able to make up the
loss. Mr. Sweeney noted that within those districts
utilizing 100 percent of their grant amounts, the grants
ranged from $1,500 to $15,000, with an average of $2 to $3
thousand. He speculated that it would be difficult to
provide a service for this amount of money.
Vice-Chair Meyer pointed out that the appropriation
($500,000) represents a small amount in the State budget,
whereas it creates a greater impact on school districts' or
local government budgets. He asked why the State could not
simply continue the grant program since it seemed to be
working well.
Mr. Sweeney acknowledged that the program funding was a
small amount and pointed out that it was not currently fully
funded. He estimated that the full amount would be closer to
$3 million. He reiterated that the purpose of the grants was
to generate programs, and stressed that communities must now
begin to maintain these programs on their own.
JOYCE KITKA, VOLUNTEER, ALASKA ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY
EDUCATION spoke against the legislation. She distributed
program information to members (copy on file). She
maintained that the funding level estimates provided by the
Department of Education and Early Development were not
accurate and included funding for other programs. She gave
the example that the amount listed for Juneau's Community
Schools' budget also included funding for a before and after
school daycare program, which was not run by Community
Schools. She noted other errors of up to $600 thousand in
budget numbers reflected for various school districts.
Ms. Kitka stressed that Community Schools was the one State
program with the potential to reach every Alaskan. She
maintained that the program had been fiscally responsible
and had developed partnerships to facilitate funding. She
stressed that the State monies were used to leverage such
partnerships. She explained that adult programs often
subsidize youth programs. She emphasized that the program
has resulted in 342,000 activity hours logged, 464,300 youth
served, 400,000 adults served. She stressed that the
212,000 hours in volunteer time was valued at $3 million.
She concluded that this was an excellent return on a State
investment of $500 thousand.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Ms. Kitka
explained that not all school districts are able to fund
community education. She noted that the program provided a
wide array of education such as childbirth classes, summer
school classes, and tutoring. She noted that the classes
were offered to meet community needs such as drivers'
education, preschool and before and after school childcare
st
programs. She noted that federal funding (21 Century
Program) was close to elimination.
In response to another question by Co-Chair Harris, Ms.
Kitka explained that fees support larger programs, such as
adult education and gym rentals. She also noted that, as a
result of the paid programs, other classes could be offered
at a reduced rate, with the intention to provide free youth
services.
Representative Hawker observed that Anchorage has extensive
community school utilization. He estimated that with
approximately 90,000 participants in the Anchorage school
program, and a grant of $151 thousand, if each of the
participants paid $2 dollars it would more than equal the
grant. He asked if that was a reasonable amount to ask from
program participants.
Ms. Kitka deferred to the Anchorage school district on the
question. She expressed that her own district advisory
committee struggled with how much if anything to charge
youth for programs. She suggested that the amount was
relative to the needs of a community.
Representative Croft asked if the numbers represented any
duplication. Ms. Kitka noted that people are counted every
time they register. Representative Croft pointed out that
Anchorage reflected only 30 thousand contact hours and
suggested that the fees would have to be more like $5 per
hour, which may prevent some youth from participating
regularly in a service such as an open gym.
SUSAN BURKE, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to the legislation.
She maintained that there is no reason to repeal authorizing
statutes. She suggested that the funding level was not the
central issue in regards to the legislation. She observed
that the funding decision had already been made in the House
Finance Committee.
Ms. Burke stressed that the true issue at hand was whether
the Committee could honestly predict that other legislatures
would never deem it appropriate for the state of Alaska to
provide financial support to community school programs. She
pointed out that appropriations could not go forward without
statutory authorization.
Ms. Burke responded to the argument that the level of
funding has not been sufficient to be meaningful to any
school district. She suggested that this argument should
support additional funding. She also spoke to the idea that
the statutes have fulfilled their purpose to establish the
programs. She pointed out that while the statue does address
the initial program development, it also suggests the
intention to support the operation of community schools.
She noted language that suggests that operational plans for
each program should be evaluated by the Department of
Education and Early Development every four years. She
concluded that there is not enough reason to repeal the
statues.
Ms. Burke acknowledged that funding levels change from year
to year and that this year's budget was unusually difficult.
She observed however that no one had stated that it was not
proper for the state to support community schools. She
emphasized that financial times and political leaders change
and pointed out the greater difficulty of reinitiating the
program, as compared to the lack of harm by maintaining the
statute. She noted that the existence of the statue did not
obligate the legislature to appropriate funds. She urged
the Committee not to take action on HB 165.
JULIE JONAS, FOUR VALLEYS COMMUNITY SCHOOL PROGRAM,
ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference in opposition to the
legislation. She pointed out that education funding is being
significantly reduced and emphasized the far-reaching
community benefits of the community schools program. She
noted that the Girdwood program sponsors soccer and service
learning programs. She stated that there is not a community
center in Girdwood, so the community school staff provided
that service. She urged the Committee not to repeal
authorizing statues for the program, even if funding was
reduced. She stressed that the community school program is
not just an afternoon school program. She maintained that
community schools hold a community together.
REBECCA REICHLIN, GIRDWOOD, spoke via teleconference in
opposition to the legislation. She stressed that funding
goes a long way and is well used. She noted that state
funding is used to leverage other local support. She listed
a number of programs supported by their community school
program, including: childcare, adult education, student
activities, tutoring, volunteer opportunities, and youth
services. She stressed that the program was increasingly
important at this time to support youth, educational
standards, and emergency preparedness. She encouraged the
legislature to identify sources of income as well as reduce
spending in order to balance the budget. She urged the
Committee not to repeal the statute.
JODY LIDDICOUT, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference in
opposition to the legislation. She noted that community
schools are behind many of the events that serve her
children. She stressed the number of volunteers associated
with the program and emphasized the huge value for a small
amount of funding.
DEBBIE BOGART, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, ANCHORAGE,
testified via teleconference in opposition to the
legislation. She responded to questions raised during
earlier testimony. She stated that the Anchorage School
District supports Community Schools remaining in statute,
with modified intent language that includes ongoing
operation.
Ms. Bogart pointed out that for 80 schools in the district,
there were only thirteen community school sites. She noted
that these sites averaged one thousand classes per quarter
offered, as well as children's enrichment programs. She
clarified that of the $1.3 million in expenditures listed by
DEED for her district, only $694 thousand was actually
attributable to Community Schools. She also noted that the
district does charge a user fee ranging from $1 to $6 [per
class] dollars. She explained that the fees are used to
repay the school district grant match, as well as for
operations and supplies. She also noted that classes pay a
minimal wage to instructors.
Ms. Bogart discussed the level of community involvement in
[Anchorage] programs: over 30,000 youth and over 28,000
adults participated, supported by 27,000 volunteer hours.
She calculated that if volunteer hours were compensated at
$15 an hour, the in-kind value would be $400,000. She
pointed out that communities were growing and becoming more
diverse. She maintained that Community Schools meets the
DEED goal of providing life-long learning and provides
needed community outreach. She also noted that programs drew
support from individuals without children, which in turn
helped to provide funding for the school system. She urged
the Committee to keep Community Schools in statute.
DARYL FARRENS, HOMER COMMUNITY SCHOOL COORDINATOR, HOMER,
testified via teleconference in opposition to the
legislation. He explained that the philosophy of their
community schools program is to make programs available to
anyone that wants to participate and therefore fees are kept
to a minimum. He stated that with the $32 thousand received
from the State, their program operated nearly seven days per
week. He noted that Homer raised 33 percent of their total
expenditures. He stressed that a cut in funding would
dramatically affect the amount and quality of community
programs offered.
CURT LEDFORD, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, SITKA, testified
via teleconference in opposition to the legislation. He
noted that his district's community schools program offered
before and after school activities, which served half of the
community's children. He stated that Sitka's program does
not receive district funding. He pointed out that the
program gave over $15,000 in scholarships to children for
summer classes.
HB 165 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
TAPE HFC 03 - 56, Side B
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to the limitation on payment of state
treasury warrants; and providing for an effective
date."
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute Work Draft, 23-LS0581\I, 4/10/03. There being NO
OBJECTION, the work draft was adopted.
LINDA SYLVESTER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH, testified
in support of the legislation. She explained that the
legislation would address stale dated warrants. She referred
to the supplemental budget, which included requests for
stale dated checks of up to two years. She stated that the
legislation amended current statute to limit warrants to six
months. She noted that under the proposed legislation, if a
warrant has not been cashed in six months, it would go to
the Unclaimed Properties Division. She maintained that this
process would not create an added burden for that division.
Ms. Sylvester also noted that the bill addressed
streamlining miscellaneous debts. She gave examples from
the supplemental budget of extremely irregular requests,
such as a charge of $26 for facsimile charges dating two
years prior. She maintained that the legislation would
eliminate stale dated warrants and miscellaneous
expenditures from the supplemental budget process.
KIM GARNERO, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION spoke in support of the
legislation. She noted that her department was responsible
for payments from the state of Alaska. She noted that if
warrants were not cashed within two years, the current
process of "stale dating" required the amount to revert to
the General Fund. She explained that, when a claim is later
made, a new appropriation was required to pay the warrants,
which could take up to one year for completion. She
reiterated that the fast track supplemental budget included
$44 thousand for stale dated warrants.
Ms. Garnero referenced the unclaimed property statute of
1986. She noted that the proposed legislation would shorten
the time frame and change the handling of stale dated
warrants by treating them as unclaimed property. She stated
that with the new procedure, the Department of Revenue would
actively seek the owners of the unclaimed warrant, thereby
expediting the process.
Ms. Garnero also stated that the proposed legislation
addressed the state's ability to pay vendors from a
previously dated invoice. She noted that current law
required a new appropriation for invoices older than two
years. She explained that the legislation would allow
agencies to simply pay the invoice from the current budget,
as long as they have an adequate lapse balance in the year
relating to the obligation. She maintained that this
procedure would more efficiently handle accounts with
vendors.
Representative Hawker referred to section 2 of the
legislation and asked for a definition of a valid approved
claim. Ms. Garnero defined it as a claim that has been
reviewed by an agency and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget.
RACHEL LEWIS, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE responded to a question by Representative Croft.
She explained that unclaimed property is held in perpetuity.
She noted that each year, several million dollars were
transferred from the Unclaimed Property Fund into the
General Fund, retaining a working balance.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 109 out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 109 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee, with one
previously published zero fiscal note from the Department of
Administration, and a "do pass" recommendation.
HOUSE BILL NO. 154
"An Act relating to admission to and advancement in
public schools of children under school age; and
providing for an effective date."
KEVIN SWEENEY, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, testified in support of the
legislation. He explained that current statute allows early
entry for students at the discretion of the school district,
providing the child meets board-prescribed standards. He
stated that the Department of Education and Early
Development feels that the intent of the statute was to
allow the early entry of a truly exceptional child. He
maintained that the provision has resulted in a two-year
kindergarten program in some districts, enrolling every four
year old in the program and counting them toward foundation
funding.
Mr. Sweeny stated that the legislation intends to clarify
the criteria for early enrollment for a four year old. He
clarified that the Department supports early enrollment of
kindergarten children with the intent of moving them on to
first grade in the next year. He observed that only a
portion of school districts currently provide services to
four year olds. He speculated that if all districts
provided this service, the fiscal note might be close to $63
million. He concluded that the effect of the bill would be
to clarify whether the state would provide thirteen or
fourteen years of funding per child.
BRUCE JOHNSON, ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA SCHOOL BOARDS,
testified in opposition to the legislation. He read from
prepared testimony as follows:
HB 154 in the estimation of our Association's members
will eliminate an important tool that many districts
have utilized to ensure an "equal start" for all
children. The inequality that currently exists among
children starting formal schooling is well documented.
A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute
validates that children enter school with wide
achievement disparities. This particular study found
that children in the highest socioeconomic group score
60 percent higher in mathematics and reading as
compared to the students in the lowest socioeconomic
group. Findings such as these help support what
educators have known for years - the "achievement gap"
begins long before children enter school. This bill,
should it become law, will severely limit a school
districts' capacity to better ensure that children
enter the public school starting gate on more equal
footing.
Please don't misunderstand AASB's position on this
issue - we believe strongly that all children can learn
regardless of their socioeconomic status. But the fact
remains that many children come to the schoolhouse door
without the advantages provided to children in our
state's more affluent homes, and this difference is
extremely difficult to overcome without opportunities
to start the schooling experience at a pre-school
level.
I would draw your attention to the tremendous advances
in student learning that are occurring in many of our
school districts. In nearly all cases, such as the
Chugach School District's Continuous Improvement model,
students pass through a system comprised of levels
based on demonstrated skills, not based on specific age
or time frames. Early intervention is key to students
acquiring the skills necessary to advance to the next
level. I would submit that a program targeted to needy
four year olds is far superior to retention at later
grades.
In summary, I urge you to reconsider HB 154 and if
needed, regulate the current law before denying the
opportunity for children most in need to enter public
schools on an equal footing with their peers. Thank
you.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Mr. Johnson
observed that there are approximately 10,000 students at any
grade level and acknowledged that Mr. Sweeny's cost
estimates were probably accurate. He conceded that to
institute a program for four year olds to fill available
classroom space was not proper policy. He pointed out that
many of the students served come from disadvantaged homes in
primarily rural districts. He encouraged the Department to
regulate the program, rather than eliminate an opportunity
for these most needy students.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Mr. Sweeney
responded that the Department was currently seeking
clarification of the statute that provides foundation
funding. He emphasized that the formula was intended to
fund school districts equally. He suggested that if the
program is provided to one district it must be offered to
all. He acknowledged the benefit of the programs, but
speculated that it was not the intent of this particular
statute.
Co-Chair Harris questioned why Anchorage and Fairbanks
school districts have not taken advantage of the program.
Mr. Sweeney maintained that more districts would wish to
take advantage of the program now that they know it is
available. He added that increased space requirements would
result in increased capital costs.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Mr. Johnson
noted that there would have to be a minimum of four hours
per day of instruction in order for a district to qualify
for full foundation funding. He added that there is reduced
need where there are quality pre-school or Head Start
programs. He noted that more urban communities offer these
types of opportunities. He noted that programs served less
than half of the children eligible for Head Start, since
there was not sufficient funding to serve the entire
population.
ROBERT BOYLE, NORTH WEST ARTIC BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
testified via teleconference in opposition to the
legislation. He quoted a study from the University of North
Carolina illustrating that the State could achieve a savings
of up to $13 thousand per pupil by investing in early years.
He noted that the savings was realized by avoiding remedial
services later.
Representative Joule asked if it would be to the State's
advantage to have children in the system earlier in school
districts with disadvantaged students. Mr. Sweeney once
again acknowledged the Department's recognition of the
program's value. He pointed out that most of the programs
receive Title 1 funding. He noted that the Department would
continue to provide full Title 1 funding at $4 thousand per
student if districts offered a preschool program. The
Department is asking for legislative clarification as to
whether the program should be supported through the
foundation formula.
Representative Stoltze noted that he had not heard from his
two school districts [Matsu and Anchorage] regarding the
legislation.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Anchorage School District
supports the program, even though they have not participated
in it. He noted that more urban districts serve students
with Head Start programs.
Co-Chair Harris speculated that the issue is of more
importance in other areas of the state, such as the
Northwest Arctic Borough.
Representative Foster pointed out that there are unique
needs throughout the state. Co-Chair Harris stressed that
the Committee must look at the State as a whole.
Representative Joule noted that there are only two Head
Start programs in his large district. He emphasized the
need for all young children to have access to early learning
opportunities.
HB 154 was HEARD and HELD in Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:19 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|