Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/30/1997 03:34 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL
SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 30, 1997
3:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative J. Allen Kemplen
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 187
"An Act relating to disclosure of public records identifying a
participant in the advance college tuition payment program;
relating to the composition and assets of the Alaska advance
college tuition payment fund; relating to administration of the
advance college tuition payment program; relating to advance
college tuition payment contracts; and providing for an effective
date."
- CHAIRMAN REQUESTED THAT SB 187 BE WAIVED
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to financial assistance for students attending
certain graduate education programs; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 193(HES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 19
Relating to the Alaska Council of Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and
Deaf/Blind.
- MOVED HCR 19 OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act relating to regulation of postsecondary educational
institutions; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 256 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 148
"An Act relating to the public school funding program; relating to
the definition of a school district, to the transportation of
students, to school district layoff plans, to the special education
service agency, to the child care grant program, and to compulsory
attendance in public schools; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 187
SHORT TITLE: UNIVERSITY TUITION PAYMENT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WILKEN; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Ogan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/25/97 1483 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/25/97 1484 (S) HES
04/28/97 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
04/28/97 (S) MINUTE(HES)
04/28/97 1509 (S) HES RPT 5DP
04/28/97 1509 (S) DP: WILKEN, LEMAN, WARD, ELLIS, GREEN
04/28/97 1510 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (UA)
04/29/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/29/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/29/97 1543 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/29/97
04/29/97 1549 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/29/97 1549 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/29/97 1549 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 187
04/29/97 1550 (S) PASSED Y17 N- E3
04/29/97 1550 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/29/97 1557 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/30/97 1394 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/30/97 1394 (H) HES
BILL: HB 193
SHORT TITLE: REPAY GRADUATE EDUCATION AID
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
03/14/97 665 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/14/97 665 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/27/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/27/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/27/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/10/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/10/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/30/97 (H) HES AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HCR 19
SHORT TITLE: COUNCIL OF DEAF/HARD OF HEARING/DEAF/BLIND
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE, Brice, Berkowitz
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
04/18/97 1171 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/18/97 1171 (H) HES
04/21/97 1225 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BERKOWITZ
04/30/97 (H) HES AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 256
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF POSTSECONDARY SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DAVIS
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
04/21/97 1212 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/21/97 1212 (H) HES
04/30/97 (H) HES AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 148
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL FUNDING ETC./ CHILD CARE GRANTS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/18/97 382 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/18/97 382 (H) HES, FINANCE
04/04/97 988 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
04/04/97 988 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/04/97 989 (H) HES, FINANCE
04/08/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/08/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/24/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/24/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/28/97 (H) HES AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 106
04/28/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/30/97 (H) HES AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7109
Telephone: (907) 465-6740
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 193(HES).
DAN SADDLER, Legislative Secretary
to Representative Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HCR 19.
MS. KAYA, Treasurer
Alaska Council on Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf/Blind Council
475 Hall Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 456-5913
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 19.
ALAN CARTWRIGHT, President
Alaska Council on Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf/Blind Council
731 Gambell Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 276-3456
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 19.
DUANE MAYES, State Coordinator for the Deaf
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Department of Education
3600 Bragaw Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 261-8226
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 19.
DARRELL CAMPBELL, Member
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education
P.O. Box 240249
Anchorage, Alaska 99514
Telephone: (907) 276-3456
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 19.
MARCIA BARNES, Member
Alaska Council on Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf/Blind Council
731 Gambell Street, Number 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-3456
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 19.
DERRILL JOHNSON, Developmental Disabilities
Division of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110620
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0620
Telephone: (907) 465-3370
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 19.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 256.
DEBORAH CRAIG, Director
Institutional Relations
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7109
Telephone: (907) 465-6740
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256.
JENNIFER DEITZ, Member
Alaska Association of Private Career Educators
Owner, Career Academy
P.O. Box 671261
Chugiak, Alaska 99567
Telephone: (907) 688-6488
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 256.
EDDY JEANS, Manager
School Finance Section
Department of Education
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1894
Telephone: (907) 465-2891
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 148.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-38, SIDE A
Number 0000
CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Green,
Porter and Kemplen. Representative Dyson and Brice arrived at 3:38
p.m. and 4:05 p.m, respectively. Representative Vezey was absent.
This meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage and Fairbanks.
SB 187 - UNIVERSITY TUITION PAYMENT PROGRAM
Number 0095
CHAIRMAN BUNDE brought up SB 187, "An Act relating to disclosure of
public records identifying a participant in the advance college
tuition payment program; relating to the composition and assets of
the Alaska advance college tuition payment fund; relating to
administration of the advance college tuition payment program;
relating to advance college tuition payment contracts; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said this bill passed out of the Senate and was
referred to the House Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee. He asked the committee members to waive SB
187, as the committee had passed the House version of the bill, HB
254.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN clarified that it was the same bill.
HB 193 - REPAY GRADUATE EDUCATION AID
Number 0147
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was HB 193,
"An Act relating to financial assistance for students attending
certain graduate education programs; and providing for an effective
date." He referred to a committee substitute.
Number 0159
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute for HB 193, dated April 24, 1997. There being
no objection, CSHB 193(HES) was before the committee.
Number 0163
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained that CSHB 193(HES) addressed some of the
questions raised by the Postsecondary Education Commission
regarding consistency. He referred to a companion bill which is
winding its way through the Senate. Two options were available to
the committee, but he preferred to remain with the first
calculation. He drew the committee's attention to page 3, which
lists those calculations. The first calculation requires that the
students repay the tuition differential for all four years. The
second calculation would exempt them from having to pay for the
first year and would only require that the tuition differential be
repaid for the second, third and fourth year. Tuition would have
to be repaid in both cases if the individual did not return to
Alaska. He reiterated that he preferred to use the first
calculation.
Number 310
DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education,
Commission, Department of Education, said it was fair to say that
the commission's concerns were addressed in CSHB 193(HES).
Number 0351
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move CSHB 193(HES) with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 193(HES) was moved from the House Health,
Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
HCR 19 - COUNCIL OF DEAF/HARD OF HEARING/DEAF/BLIND
Number 0380
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was HCR 19,
Relating to the Alaska Council of Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and
Deaf/Blind.
Number 0420
DAN SADDLER, Legislative Secretary to Representative Bunde, said
HCR 19 was designed to offer recognition and encouragement to a
volunteer, nonprofit organization that is dedicated to improving
the quality of services available to assist Alaska's deaf, hard of
hearing and deaf/blind citizens. The Alaska Council of Deaf, Hard
of Hearing and Deaf/Blind has been operating for two years. Its
members are drawn from several nonprofit organizations already
operating in Southeast, Interior and Southcentral Alaska. Members
are also drawn from representatives of state councils dealing with
this community.
MR. SADDLER explained that the council was established to address
the need for a central clearinghouse of information on the services
available and needed by the community of deaf, hard of hearing and
deaf/blind Alaskans. The council is not so much a warehouse that
provides services, but acts as a library and forum where
information about these services is available for consumers and
providers to share. While many individuals, agencies and
institutions serving this community have good intentions, they are
hampered sometimes by their isolation from the large body of
knowledge on deaf, hard of hearing and deaf/blind issues available
elsewhere. This community comprises a distinct linguistic and
cultural minority which is different from the mainstream linguistic
and cultural population. Resources for these Alaskans are limited
and fragmented. Qualified professionals are rare and standards of
performance don't exist for most people who are trying to provide
human services to this group.
Number 0532
MR. SADDLER stated that there are at least 6,000 Alaskans who have
some type of hearing loss. This loss can be caused by the effects
of snow machines, chain saws or industrial noise. Most times
hearing loss is rooted in genetics or in the effects of childhood
ear infections. At least 40 states have recognized councils,
commissions or task forces related to the deaf. This resolution
will provide the Alaska council an increased prominence in our
state which should encourage various individuals, organizations and
agencies to utilize their services. The resolution will also
encourage other nonprofits to continue offering this council their
financial and organizational support.
MR. SADDLER said it is important to note several things this
resolution does not do. It does not create any state council,
agency or panel. It does not establish this council as the sole
voice of Alaska's deaf, hard of hearing and deaf/blind community.
It does not bar any other organization from providing services. It
does not cost the state a penny. He encouraged the committee to
support this resolution to recognize and encourage the Alaska
Council of Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deaf/Blind in its work,
sharing information and fostering understanding to improve the
quality of services available to this group of Alaskans.
Number 0625
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER cited a personal experience of hearing loss.
He stated that there is a lot of misunderstanding and a lack of
acceptance for the needs of people who are hard of hearing and
deaf. He felt there was room for increased understanding and that
the council was well positioned to accomplish this task.
Number 0736
MS. KAYA, Treasurer, Alaska Council on Deaf, Hard of Hearing and
Deaf/Blind Council, testified next via teleconference from
Fairbanks. She said the council has been gathering information and
becoming a resource for many communities. She travels to the rural
areas of northern Alaska to work with these issues and collect
data. She felt there were 60,000 people in Alaska who are deaf,
hard of hearing and deaf/blind, not 6,000. The national average
states that 8 percent of people have some type of hearing loss
ranging from mild to severe. Alaska is known to have a much higher
than this national average. If you take the Alaska population and
multiply it by 8 percent, you will derive a figure somewhere near
60,000.
Number 0848
CHAIRMAN BUNDE commented that 60,000 would fall into the category
of hearing loss and perhaps the 6,000 referred to the profoundly
deaf.
Number 0855
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why Alaska was significantly higher
regarding hearing loss.
Number 0873
MS. KAYA answered that there are a variety of theories: snow
machine use, hunting, equipment and ear infections. Alaska has a
much higher proportion of ear infections due to the weather and
lack of medical care in the more rural areas.
Number 0904
CHAIRMAN BUNDE mentioned that when he worked as a speech and
hearing therapist, he worked with people who had bilateral losses.
There were so many people with this type of loss that people
weren't operated on unless they were severely impacted in both
ears.
Number 0940
ALAN CARTWRIGHT, President, Alaska Council on Deaf, Hard of Hearing
and Deaf/Blind Council, testified next via teleconference from
Anchorage. He said there are networking systems throughout the
state which provide accurate information to those who need to
decide policy and programs. These decisions will ensure a better
quality of services for the state of Alaska. He strongly
appreciated the legislative stand in HCR 19.
Number 0938
DUANE MAYES, State Coordinator for the Deaf, Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation, Department of Education, testified next via
teleconference from Anchorage. The division supports this
resolution.
Number 1009
DARRELL CAMPBELL, Member, Governor's Council on Disabilities and
Special Education, testified next via teleconference from
Anchorage. The Governor's council is in favor of HCR 19 because
the Alaska Council on Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf/Blind Council
represents organizations and agencies throughout the state. The
council can assist the Governor's council to give advice on how to
be better prepared and to provide quality services for the deaf,
hard of hearing and deaf/blind. He appreciated the legislature's
support of HCR 19.
Number 1051
MARCIA BARNES, Member, Alaska Council on Deaf, Hard of Hearing and
Deaf/Blind Council, testified next via teleconference from
Anchorage. She has worked as a coordinator for deaf/blind services
and explained that one of the difficulties was getting the proper
information to correctly identify the population. There is a
misconception that a hearing aid can solve all the problems for a
hard of hearing person. This resolution will assist the council in
promoting a better understanding of these types of issues.
Number 1129
DERRILL JOHNSON, Developmental Disabilities, Division of Mental
Health and Developmental Disabilities, Department of Health and
Social Services, said the department wants to support HCR 19. They
feel it provides a public endorsement of past efforts and they
believe that this council can become an advocacy organization for
the deaf and hard of hearing. The organization has created a role
for themselves as an established clearinghouse for information
which goes out into the community in a wide variety of means. This
council has successfully acted as a referral agency for information
to families who might just be starting to learn about this subject.
This council can be a potential future provider of services, but
they will also be able to work as a liaison with existing agencies.
He felt this council has been very effective in bringing the needs
of the deaf community to the planners for future funding and
services.
Number 1222
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON made a motion to move HCR 19 with
individual recommendations. There being no objection, HCR 19 was
moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
HB 256 - REGULATION OF POSTSECONDARY SCHOOLS
Number 1244
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was HB 256,
"An Act relating to regulation of postsecondary educational
institutions; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1253
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, Sponsor of HB 256, explained that HB 256
provides language that agencies will cover their own cost of
implementing regulations and statutes. The Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education, through regulations, operates the numerous
vocational and secondary education programs and schools throughout
the state in order to protect students and the public. Currently
the $100 fee for program authorization is inadequate. The section
of the commission which authorizes and investigates these
institutions has a one and a half person staff.
Number 1377
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the essence of the bill is located on
page 2, Section 2, relating to the implementation of fees through
regulation. This would not be fee specific, but a fee structure
based on enrollment and the tuition generated from each
institution. Research has found that Alaska has a low
authorization fee.
Number 1446
CHAIRMAN BUNDE cited an example where one of these institutions
went bankrupt a month ago. He pointed to the need for these
authorizations.
Number 1465
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said this was a good example of why we need
the staff to go in and investigate situations and staff to make
sure that the institutions authorized by the license are properly
screened.
Number 1496
DEBORAH CRAIG, Director, Institutional Relations, Postsecondary
Education Commission, Department of Education, stated that the
purpose in institutional authorization is to set standards relating
to the quality of education as it affects health, safety, fiscal
responsibility, et cetera and to address rights and remedies
available to the public. Organizationally, there has been a period
of flux within her section and serious looks have been taken in
regards to cost efficiencies and professionalism. This fee
structure is something which was broached in the past.
Number 1549
MS. CRAIG referred to an information packet located in the
committee file. Research was done in 25 of 50 states, Alaska was
at the low end of the spectrum. The fees from various states were
set at a percentage of the total tuition and by tuition generated
by the schools. The sample fee structure has been based on a
percentage of tuition and fee revenue, setting a minimum and
maximum. The minimum has been set at $500, recognizing that there
is a minimum cost to the commission to authorize the institution.
There was also a reluctance to burden schools, so the high end of
the fees was capped at $2,500.
Number 1616
MS. CRAIG explained that over 60 percent of the schools under this
authorization have revenues over $80,000. These school would only
pay $2,500. Only 17 percent of institutions have revenues under
$17,000, the level at which the $500 fee is set. There are
relatively few small schools who would be impacted by this fee
schedule and a larger number of schools would benefit from capping
the fee. The authorization is from one to five years, the cost
varies based on the school's performance. This mechanism allows
the commission to honor those schools who operate in an appropriate
fashion. If authorized for a longer period of time, then the cost
for authorization would be lessened than if it were calculated on
a yearly basis. Conversely, those schools which require more time,
based on their performance, would be held responsible by more
frequent authorization fees.
Number 1666
CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated that the current fee schedule is heavily
subsidized. He asked if this subsidy came from general fund money
or from the operating budget of the Postsecondary Education
Commission which is bonded.
Number 1679
MS. CRAIG answered that it came from corporate receipts.
Number 1681
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained that on a global view, the student loan
program is funded by corporate receipts and it is challenging for
those receipts to meet all the demands of the program. Currently,
there are student loans which are subsidizing these businesses.
Number 1702
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the minimum and maximum fees and
asked if the amount charged would not be a fixed formula and not
open to discretion, but a combination of both.
Number 1727
MS. CRAIG said the sample fee structure is one that would be set in
regulation. The fee schedule would be based on a percentage of
tuition and fee revenue with a fixed minimum and maximum. The fees
would be on a sliding scale between the $500 and $2,500.
Number 1738
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thought he heard a discussion about the use of
discretion in determining the fees.
Number 1745
MS. CRAIG answered that there is discretion in terms of the length
of time that the commission would authorize a school to operate,
based on their performance.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that it is the length of time and
not the amount of the fee that is discretionary.
Number 1755
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that the normal regulatory process
would be followed and instituted in these fees, the people impacted
would have the ability to come forward and avoid situations which
occurred in recent years.
Number 1776
MS. CRAIG explained that she has only been made aware of those
situations in retrospect.
Number 1786
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said that when Ms. Craig came to him with the
proposal he was reminded of the situation referred to by
Representative Porter. As a result he questioned how the
institutions felt about this fee change. The answer was that it
had been discussed with these schools, it shouldn't be a surprise
to them and they should know that something like this would be
proposed. After investigating, he did not feel there was a
collective opposition.
Number 1827
MS. CRAIG added that her background is in administering vocational
education programs. She understood what it takes to operate a
"tight ship" and is sympathetic to a school's needs and the
parameters under which they operate. The goal in this whole
structure was to try to find a mechanism that was fair and
equitable. She stated that as a former school administrator, she
would testify that this would increase the cost of operating. She
felt the commission was charged with finding a mechanism to make
this fair and equitable for the state and the regulated public.
Number 1865
CHAIRMAN BUNDE commented that those schools who would receive the
capped fee would still be subsidized.
Number 1875
MS. CRAIG clarified that the proposed fees would not cover the cost
of the service. Over 60 percent of schools had revenues that if
the calculation were based on a percentage basis would place them
over the $2,500 fee.
Number 1902
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS mentioned a section in HB 256 which relates to
investigations. This would assist the commission in recovering
costs involved in investigations based on complaints. These costs
do not specifically relate to the fees.
Number 1943
MS. CRAIG explained that there are three components to the bill:
the fee component, clarification of which schools are exempt from
authorization, and allowing the commission to recoup some of their
costs of investigation and adjudication of cases when schools have
engaged in acts which clearly violate statute and regulation. The
language clearly states that the school must clearly be in
violation of statute and regulation for the commission to recoup
some of these costs. These recouped costs are capped at $5,000.
Recently, the state paid significant amounts of money to
investigate and adjudicate a situation where the school was clearly
out of compliance.
Number 1990
JENNIFER DEITZ, Member, Alaska Association of Private Career
Educators, Owner, Career Academy, testified next via teleconference
from Anchorage. She spoke in favor of the commission's attempt to
streamline the processes and procedures, rewriting the statute so
that it was clearer. She spoke with Theresa Williams who helped
her understand some of the nuances of the language. She expressed
concern regarding the fee structure as it is ambiguous,
specifically regarding the initial authorization and the
application fee. As a new school entering the state of Alaska, a
tremendous amount of the commission's time is spent evaluating the
school's ability to be a school. She thought their fee should
probably be higher than the fee for a school that has been doing
business in the state and has a track record with the commission.
Number 2044
MS. DEITZ explained that as a state association representing about
40 different types of institutions, some larger than others, she
cautioned against overburdening small institutions who will be
paying a higher cost per student. She referred to Ms. Craig's
comment about the commission spending an inordinate amount of time
investigating those smaller schools. As the owner of an accredited
school, she felt that she was asked by every possible government
body for fees and structures, eventually those costs are passed on
to the students. She wanted to find some way for schools that are
doing a good job and meeting or exceeding the standards of the
commission to not suffer under all these fees.
Number 2096
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that his consulting firm is registered
with the commission.
Number 2132
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move HB 256 out of
committee. There being no objection, HB 256 was moved from the
House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
TAPE 97-38, SIDE B
HB 148 - SCHOOL FUNDING ETC./ CHILD CARE GRANTS
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was HB 148,
"An Act relating to the public school funding program; relating to
the definition of a school district, to the transportation of
students, to school district layoff plans, to the special education
service agency, to the child care grant program, and to compulsory
attendance in public schools; and providing for an effective date.
Number 0069
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance Section, Department of
Education, referred to a handout titled, "HB 148 School Funding
Formula, Overview." The first page outlined the process to
determine a district's adjusted average daily membership (ADM).
The equalization funding is set in Section 14.17.410(a)(1),
starting on page two of the draft legislation, CSHB 148(HES). All
adjustments are set in either statute or regulation and the only
variable, collected from the school districts under this formula,
is the ADM.
Number 0159
MR. JEANS stated that the first item on the handout is the size
adjustment. Each school district is divided into a funding
community. This is the community which is being served with the
exception of the larger communities who have high schools being fed
by junior high and elementary schools. The next adjustment is the
area cost factor which is assigned at the funding community level.
In the draft legislation, there are seven different area cost
differentials as opposed to current statute which has 23 different
cost differentials assigned to each school district.
MR. JEANS said the department will repeat steps one and two for a
school district. They will look up the size adjustment based on
the ADM for that community and the area cost factor which has been
set for that funding community. If the process is only done one
time because there is only one funding community in that district,
then it is a single site school district. There is an additional
adjustment for a school district serving less than 900 students.
MR. JEANS explained that the next adjustment takes the result and
multiplies it times the special needs factor which is 1.20. The
next step is to determine the student transportation, as it will be
set in regulation and assigned to school districts, located in
Section 26. Once this process is completed for all the funding
communities within the school district then they are totaled. This
final amount is called the district's adjusted ADM.
MR. JEANS stated that the intensive funding is taken into
consideration. This adjustment involves those students who are
severely handicapped and have high costs associated with their
education. The draft legislation calls for an allocation of
$22,500 for each one of these students, adjusted by the area cost
differential for that community. Currently, the state of Alaska
has approximately 1,200 of these students.
MR. JEANS said that the adjusted ADM is multiplied by the base
student allocation. Then the intensive funding is added to
determine what is called the district need. The basic formula to
determine district need takes the ADM multiplied by the size
adjustment multiplied by the area cost factor multiplied by the
single site adjustment multiplied by the special needs adjustment
multiplied by the transportation adjustment plus the intensive
funding allocation.
MR. JEANS explained the process to determine state aid. They start
with the district's need, subtract the required local effort and
end up with the amount of state aid.
Number 0350
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked how many localities have no required local
contribution.
Number 0362
MR. JEANS answered that there are 19 out of the 53 school districts
which do not currently have a required local contribution.
Number 0375
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the special needs multiplier would tend
to increase the differences between a large school and a smaller
school as it multiples on a scale greater than one. He asked if
the purpose was to help smaller schools and if this same thing
could be accomplished by adjusting the funding community size
factor.
Number 0406
MR. JEANS answered that it could be achieved by adjusting the size
factor. The purpose behind the 20 percent allocation for special
needs is to identify a pool of money that is available for
districts to address special education needs, bilingual needs and
the vocational needs for that district. This multiplier creates a
pool of resources without one particular name attached to it.
Number 0433
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN verified that everyone gets the 1.2
multiplier.
MR. JEANS referred to page two of the handout.
Number 0439
CHAIRMAN BUNDE wanted to clarify that CSHB 148(HES) also calls for
a study of the area cost differential. There are those who feel
that the world has changed since that the area cost differential
was last calculated. The study would determine how much this area
cost differential would be and who would qualify.
Number 0467
MR. JEANS stated that the area cost differentials, in current
statute, are assigned at a school district level and are based on
the 1985 state employee wage differentials with some recommended
adjustments by Dr. Nat Cole (Ph.) The Department of Education
(DOE) has believed, for a number of years, that the area cost
differentials need to be moved down to a funding community level.
This addresses concerns expressed by municipalities such as Kenai.
Kenai has both large and smaller, remote communities. Currently
the city of Kenai has an area cost differential of 1.0 as does that
smaller, remote community across the inlet.
Number 0516
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained that not only would the study talk about
the amount of the multiplier, but it who would get the specific
amount. It would change from the school district to the school.
Number 0525
MR. JEANS commented that the DOE wants to study the cost of
operating a school, not the cost of living in that district.
MR. JEANS said that page two goes through some calculations. They
picked the Kashunamiut School District, a single site school
district serving the community of Chevak. The ADM for fiscal year
1998 projected 269 students. Referring back to a chart on page one
the funding community has a size factor of 1.40. The area cost
factor has been determined to be 1.32 for this community. This
factor generates $497.11. The base ADM determines the single site
adjustment, in this case 1.08. All districts receive the
adjustment of 1.20 for special needs. Chevak does have some
transportation services, but they are very minimal. When this was
taken in consideration of their total budget, it was not
measurable. As a result their transportation adjustment was 1.0.
MR. JEANS stated that you go through and multiply each one of these
and you arrive at the district's adjusted ADM which is the $644.26.
The first year of this bill would see a student allotment of $3,400
per student. There are some student transition allocations.
Number 0629
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what computation was used to determine
the $3,400.
Number 0634
MR. JEANS explained that the task is to keep the total money
appropriated for education the same, not to increase it. A formula
is developed and then the result is backed into the student
allocation which keeps the Governor's request of $659 million for
the foundation program in fiscal year 1998.
Number 0661
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that the amount was just a portion
of that total.
Number 0667
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if it was a function of the $644.26.
Number 0676
MR. JEANS answered that it is a function of all the adjusted ADMs
statewide. The intensive funding had to be backed out of the total
amount to arrive at the student allocation. The intent was to keep
the same level of funding, to not increase or decrease funding for
education.
Number 0696
MR. JEANS said Chevak has projected that three students will
require intensive services. This intensive service allocation is
multiplied times the area cost differential to come up with the
figure of 3.96. The intensive allocation is set in the draft
legislation at $22,500 so their intensive funding would be $89,100.
When this amount is added to the base funding, the district need is
$2,279,584.
MR. JEANS stated the next thing is a determination of whether or
not this district has a required local contribution. There are two
ways to measure the required local contribution in the draft
statute: 35 percent of the district's need or the equivalent of a
3 mill tax levy on the full and true value as established by the
Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA). The lesser of
the two is the local contribution. He said 35 percent of Chevak's
need would be $797,854, but they do not have a full value
determination as established by the DCRA. Therefore, Chevak's
required local effort is zero. Zero is subtracted from their need
and the state aid is determined to be $2,279,584.
Number 0767
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked why Chevak did not have full value
determination as established by the DCRA.
Number 0775
MR. JEANS explained that DCRA provides the full value
determination, which is the real and personal property of those
communities which have taxing authority. Those are the first class
and organized municipalities or boroughs. Chevak is in the
category of "unorganized borough." Therefore, they don't have a
property value.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER clarified that it is not a matter of the
state assessment, but a matter of them being organized and doing
their own assessment.
Number 0804
MR. JEANS explained that CSHB 148(HES) does have a hold harmless
provision to protect districts from dramatic changes due to the
change in the formula. The legislation states that in the first
year the district will not receive less than 100 percent of what
they would have received under the previous formula through their
allocation under the single site and through their allocation of
transportation.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced that this meeting would end so that the
committee could hold an informal work session. He indicated it
would be off the record.
TAPE 97-39
[THE WORK SESSION WAS RECORDED BUT NO LOG NOTES WERE TAKEN. A COPY
OF TAPE 97-39 MAY BE OBTAINED BY CONTACTING THE HOUSE RECORDS
OFFICE AT 130 SEWARD STREET, SUITE 211, JUNEAU, ALASKA 99801-1182,
(907) 465-2214, AND AFTER ADJOURNMENT OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE
TWENTIETH ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE, IN THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE
LIBRARY.]
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN BUNDE adjourned the meeting of the House Health, Education
and Social Services Standing Committee at 4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|