Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/22/2021 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB32 | |
| SB36 | |
| SB19 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 22, 2021
9:03 a.m.
9:03:35 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Sponsor; Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator
Gary Stevens; Erin Shine, Staff, Senator Click Bishop.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Dr. Paul Layer, Vice President for Academics, Students, and
Research, University of Alaska; Deena Bishop,
Superintendent, Anchorage School District; Gene Stone,
Chief School Administrator, Lower Yukon School District,
Mountain Village; Peter Hoepfner, Cordova School Board,
Cordova; Chris Reitan, Superintendent, Craig School System,
Craig; Scott MacManus, Superintendent, Alaska Gateway
School District, Tok; Patrick Mayer, Superintendent,
Aleutians East Borough, Sand Point; Susan Kalina, Vice
Provost for Academic Affairs and Institutional
Effectiveness, University of Alaska Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SB 19 EXTEND SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICE AGENCY
SB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 32 COLLEGE CREDIT FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
SB 32 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 36 U OF A REGENTS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
SB 36 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:04:38 AM
SENATE BILL NO. 32
"An Act establishing the Alaska middle college program
for public school students; and relating to the powers
of the University of Alaska."
9:04:55 AM
Co-Chair Bishop introduced the bill sponsor.
9:05:27 AM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR, discussed SB 32. He thought
the committee was familiar with the issues in the bill. He
simplified that the bill arranged for students all over
Alaska to take accredited college classes while in high
school. He thought students that began the process of
taking University classes during high school went on to
become full time students at the University of Alaska. He
thought the courses allowed for students to learn how to
take college level classes. He stated that the bill would
benefits both students and learning institutions alike.
9:08:02 AM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, reiterated that
the bill was identical to a bill that had passed the
committee the previous year but had died after the COVID-19
pandemic had cut the legislative session short. He
summarized that the bill was not meant to micro-manage but
to provide a flexible framework for learning opportunities.
9:09:34 AM
DR. PAUL LAYER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMICS, STUDENTS, AND
RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. He cited that dual enrollment
programs had been shown to increase collage going rate. He
said that the University had been partner with similar
programs in Anchorage and Fairbanks that had been
successful and were expanding. He spoke of the virtual
middle college that partnered with districts, which served
areas without road systems or campuses. He expressed
appreciation of the flexibility allowed for in the
legislation. He noted that technical courses were also
available under the legislation.
Dr. Layer highlighted that the courses in question were
college-level courses that would appear on a college
transcript and would be on a student's permanent record. He
believed that the legislation offered an affordable way for
students to get a jump start on their college education.
9:14:00 AM
Senator Wilson asked about the capacity of the colleges.
He wondered whether there were limitations for each campus.
Mr. Layer relayed that the University had not reached
capacity and had the ability to take on more students. He
noted that the program for the Fairbanks North Star School
District had originally been limited to 40 students, and
the waiting list was long. He continued that there were
about 30 school districts that were currently partnered
with the University.
9:15:41 AM
Senator Wilson asked about screening criteria in the case
that a cap was met. He asked about online versus
traditional classroom success rates for the current school
year. He shared that an online class from his district had
a 40 percent failure rate as compared to in-person
learning.
Mr. Layer emphasized that the online program was a
partnership with the schools and schools provided guidance
and support. He noted that in a traditional online class,
there might not be the same level of support. He emphasized
that a support mechanism was essential to the students
success. He noted that the Memorandum of Agreement between
schools and Universities iterated the responsibilities to
provide support.
9:17:26 AM
9:17:43 AM
DEENA BISHOP, SUPERINTENDENT, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT
(via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She
relayed that she had been involved in similar programs
since 2021. She noted that the bill allowed for many
different models depending upon the school districts and
the needs of the students. She thought the program could be
implemented in various ways and would not eliminate
technical prep agreements. She stressed that dual
enrollment added value and offered equity of opportunity to
students.
Ms. Bishop believed that dual enrollment programs supported
high standards in education in the state. She noted that
low variance among school districts was important. She
believed that all parties involved cold work together to
make the bill a reality for Alaskas students. She stressed
that the bill should not be considered an unfunded mandate
but a tool that prepares Alaskan students for college,
which should be a priority of the state.
9:21:21 AM
Ms. Bishop continued her comments. She thought there were
several bills in process that reflected the educational
values of the state. She related that many students that
took college level classes in high school continued to
university.
Ms. Bishop stressed the importance of the legislation.
9:23:51 AM
Senator Wielechowski looked at the MOU, and noted the
agreement was for upwards of 200 students. He asked about
the anticipated demand for the program.
Ms. Bishop responded that the demand had grown in
Anchorage, which started with 100 student and had a waiting
list. She emphasized that students had to work hard to
qualify for the program. She added that the district had
wanted to ensure that the students had an excellent
experience, which is why the number of students was limited
initially.
Ms. Bishop continued her response to Senator Wielechowski's
question. She believed that growth should happen
thoughtfully overtime.
9:26:35 AM
Senator Wielechowski looked at the MOU and observed that
the majority of the courses were at the Eagle River campus.
He asked whether there were transportation options for
students.
Ms. Bishop explained that King Tech High School provided
transportation. She considered that the district had taken
down barriers for students not only in transportation, but
by providing support for college prep.
9:28:37 AM
Senator Olson asked about potential funding
responsibilities for school districts, particularly in
rural areas of the state.
Mr. Layer explained that through the Alaska Advantage
program the University shared the costs of the program with
districts. He offered to provide additional information on
pricing for districts. He stressed that the idea was to
provide an affordable and accessible program. He noted that
there were other entities, external to Alaska, that offered
programs, but he stressed that the University program was
unique as it was Alaska-focused. He shared that the
University wanted to be the entity that districts reached
out to first for dual enrollment opportunities.
9:30:51 AM
Ms. Bishop added when yearly BSA funds were received
decisions were made daily about the value of those dollars
and the education priorities for Alaskan students. She said
that in Anchorage, as well as Mat-Su, budgeting approached
had been changed to reach desired outcomes. She shared that
when the Anchorage program had grown. She relayed that
cooperatives with other school districts had been used to
share costs. She shared that focusing on optimum outcomes
would lead to the right decisions and spending priorities.
9:32:24 AM
Senator Olson did not doubt the program had value. He
wondered how to ensure that all students in the state were
able to participate, especially in rural areas where there
were challenges with achievement at the college level.
Senator Stevens appreciated Senator Olson's concerns. He
thought bigger districts had done a great job. He expressed
appreciation for the work of Mr. Layer and Ms. Bishop. He
thought that smaller districts were challenging and
appreciated Ms. Bishops work with the Lower Yukon. He
stressed that the bill was crafted to ensure that rural and
urban student would have equal access. He did not believe
that the program should be categorized as an unfunded
mandate.
9:35:34 AM
Senator Olson thought Lower Yukon School District was the
outlier in the scenario being discussed. He asked whether
the student at Mount Edgecumbe Boarding School would
qualify for the program.
Dr. Bishop believed that dual credits were offered at Mount
Edgecumbe. She emphasized that if districts worked together
to offer courses, there could be a mixed cohort with
students from other districts. She stressed that
cooperatives between districts were a powerful tool. She
said that innovative ways for successful outcomes were
being regularly discussed.
9:37:39 AM
Senator von Imhof supported the program and wanted to
address funding. She referenced the Sectional Analysis
(copy on file):
(h) ADM: Holds harmless a school district's Average
Daily Membership (ADM) calculation. Students
participating in the AMC program are to still be
counted toward the respective school district's ADM.
Senator von Imhof asked who was paying the University of
Alaska for the tuition and the credits that the students
would receive.
Ms. Bishop relayed that the Anchorage School District (ASD)
currently paid the University. She stated that the MOAs
detailed services that would be utilized by students. She
said that because students were still enrolled in high
school, much of their tuition would be covered by schools.
She stressed that the intent was to create college ready
kids. She said that some high schools and colleges shared
teachers.
9:41:35 AM
Senator von Imhof appreciated the information. She noted
that there was a zero fiscal impact note, and it appeared
that ASD and the University had created an agreement to
share resources. She noted that not all districts had large
student counts. She had concerns with the word "shall" in
the legislation and preferred the word "may" because some
districts might not have the financial resources to
participate in the program. She felt that the program
should be offered to school districts that wanted to
participate. She stressed that many districts might no be
able to afford the program.
9:43:28 AM
Mr. Lamkin relayed that the issue of "shall" versus "may"
had been discussed at some length. He stated that the
sponsor wished to express, through the language of the
bill, an expectation that the program be made available. He
stated that schools could opt out of the program.
Senator Stevens thought that to some extent the inclusion
of "shall" addressed the concept of equal opportunity as
previously mentioned by Ms. Bishop. He reiterated that
districts were not required to take part in the program but
that every student should be afforded the opportunity.
9:45:01 AM
9:45:13 AM
Mr. Lamkin addressed the Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS (Version A)
Sec. 1: AS 14.07.168 Regarding an annual report
submitted to the Legislature by the state
Board of Education and Early Development, amended to
include in that report a current summary of middle
college activity and outcomes in the state.
Sec. 2: AS 14.30 is amended to add a new Article 15,
relating to the Alaska Middle College
Program.
AS 14.30.780 (a) Establishes a Middle College
program for eligible students in high school to
enroll in courses at the University of Alaska,
and to earn credit toward a college degree as
well as credit toward high school graduation.
(b) UA shall enter into an agreement with each
school district to participate in the AMC, giving
access to any eligible student to participate in
the program.
(c) Eligibility: Establishes baseline student
eligibility requirements to include being
enrolled in a public school, be in high school
(grades 9-12), to not have already received a
high school diploma, and demonstrate to the
satisfaction of both the school district and the
UA as being academically competent to complete
college level coursework.
(d) Awareness: Requires school districts to
establish and maintain awareness of AMC course
offerings and eligibility requirements to
students and parents, including the academic and
social responsibilities of participating in the
AMC.
(e) Financing: UA and school districts shall
include in their respective MOU a manner of
sharing costs associated with providing the AMC
program locally, including tuition waivers,
scholarships, and other means of reducing program
costs and finding efficiencies.
(f) Course Quality: specifies that courses
offered by the AMC must meet quality and content
standards, including quality instruction, and
regular course and instructor review.
(g) Credit Cap: Under the AMC program, students
may not enroll in more than 15 credit hours per
semester, nor earn more than a total of 60
credits.
(h) ADM: Holds harmless a school district's
Average Daily Membership (ADM) calculation.
Students participating in the AMC program are to
still be counted toward the respective school
district's ADM.
(i) Transcripts: Allows the UA and school
districts to exchange student transcript
information for purposes of determining program
eligibility or for graduation requirements.
(j) Definitions: Provides definitions for use of
the term "program" in this section as being the
AMC program, and for "school district" as
consistent with other uses of that term in
statute, as defined on AS 14.30.350.
Sec. 3:AS 14.40.040, relating to general powers and
duties of the UA, is a conforming amendment to :
(c) UA must implement the AMC and regularly
review the AMC course content and quality of
instruction to meet national standards for dual
credit, enter into MOUs with school districts
consistent with the AMC, and award student credit
for course completion of AMC courses, which will
be fully transferable within the UA system.
9:49:13 AM
Senator Wilson asked about page 4 Line 8, and the releasing
of transcripts. He asked whether the requirement met the
Federal Education Protraction Act (FRPA) policy.
Mr. Lamkin stated that the language had been negotiated
between districts and the University. He deferred to Mr.
Layer.
Mr. Layer replied in the affirmative.
9:50:03 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the University credits
were transferable outside the UA system.
Mr. Layer responded in the affirmative.
9:50:35 AM
Senator von Imhof pondered a smaller school district in
which 50 percent of the kids wanted to participate in the
program. She questioned what would happen to the staffing
of the home district and would the University need to add
another staff member.
Ms. Bishop believed money should follow student needs. She
shared that ASD utilized university professors, but some
dual credit options existed that used high school teachers
who moonlighted as adjunct professors by night. She
stressed that there were various ways to implement the
program based on the number of students wanting to
participate.
9:52:54 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
9:53:07 AM
GENE STONE, CHIEF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR, LOWER YUKON SCHOOL
DISTRICT, MOUNTAIN VILLAGE (via teleconference), testified
in support of the bill. He thought the bill was an
important opportunity for rural students in the state who
currently could only receive dual credits online. He had
worked as assistant superintendent in Mat-Su and had worked
on development of the first Middle College Program. He
testified that the ability to use K-12 funds for students
to earn up to an associates degree was beneficial to
Alaskan families.
Mr. Stone continued his testimony. He spoke of the programs
available in Anchorage and Mat-Su. He reiterated that the
program would not be an unfunded mandate. He stressed that
the on-campus experience for high school students was
essential for success at the college level.
9:56:12 AM
PETER HOEPFNER, CORDOVA SCHOOL BOARD, CORDOVA (via
teleconference), spoke in opposition to the bill. He
supported students getting dual credit but not that the
bill mandated that districts participate. He believed that
the spending of K-12 dollars was a local control issue.
9:59:24 AM
CHRIS REITAN, SUPERINTENDENT, CRAIG SCHOOL SYSTEM, CRAIG
(via teleconference), spoke in support to the bill. He
expressed concerns about specific language on Page 3, line
18:
(e) An agreement entered into by a school district and
the University of Alaska under (b) of this section
must outline the manner in which costs associated with
the program will be shared between the participating
school district and the University of Alaska.
He appreciated the intent of the bill and thought that
language should be included that the University would
develop a negotiated, affordable, and uniform rate across
all districts. He believed that this would create a more
equitable playing field for all Alaskan students.
10:01:26 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether the bill mandated that school
districts participate in the Middle College Program.
Senator Stevens answered in the negative. He asserted that
the bill took no power from local school districts. He
asserted that schools could choose whether to participate
or not to participate.
10:02:14 AM
SCOTT MACMANUS, SUPERINTENDENT, ALASKA GATEWAY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, TOK (via teleconference), spoke in opposition to
the bill. He took umbrage with the language of shall as
it was written in the legislation. He referenced Mr.
Reitan's testimony and agreed with his sentiments regarding
flexible solutions for smaller districts. He thought that
small school districts should be included in the program's
design. He believed that dual credit programs were a good
idea but did not want them to be mandated. He said that
dual credit programs had worked well in his district.
Mr. MacManus cited the fiscal note for the University and
the fiscal note for the Department of Education and Early
Development were both zero fiscal notes, which indicated
that costs would be placed on school districts. He
summarized that he supported the concept, and supported
students, but opposed the legislation as currently written.
10:06:11 AM
PATRICK MAYER, SUPERINTENDENT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, SAND
POINT (via teleconference), testified that he did not think
it was necessary to mandate school district participation.
He thought the consideration of "shall" versus "may"
warranted additional scrutiny.
Mr. Mayer spoke about challenges with bandwidth. He shared
that bandwidth in his district was unstable. He
acknowledged that resources for the program would come out
of the school districts budget. He thought there was an
issue of scale. He explained that smaller districts did not
have the capacity to move students and teachers around in
the same way as larger districts. He proposed that there
was an equity issue with the bill. He thought mandatory
program participation would be a big issue for the
Aleutians.
10:09:48 AM
10:10:06 AM
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
10:10:21 AM
Senator Wilson asked whether the bill would affect students
in homeschool programs.
Senator Stevens did not think there would be an impact to
homeschool students.
Senator Wilson asked whether homeschool students could
participate in the program.
Co-Chair Bishop noted that Ms. Bishop was nodding her head
in the affirmative.
Senator Wilson thought that people in smaller districts who
could not participate through their brick-and-mortar school
could switch to homeschooling and then be able to
participate in the program.
10:11:33 AM
Mr. Lamkin pointed to Page 2 of the legislation:
(b) The University of Alaska shall make the program
available to school districts in the state by entering
into an agreement with each school district in the
state that has eligible students interested in
participating in the program.
Mr. Lamkin stressed that the onus was on the University to
make the program available. He thought the reporting
process proposed by the bill would identify any barriers
for students, which would then be addressed.
Mr. Lamkin asserted that changing the bill wording to "may"
would effectually leave the program as it currently
existed; changing the language to shall meant that
schools would need to explain why they were opting out and
then address any existing barriers to their students
participating in the program. He thought that top notch
students in any district should be afforded every resource
possible to succeed.
10:13:26 AM
Ms. Bishop affirmed that the bill would improve the
outcomes of the already established programs. She thought
that the shall in the bill would lead to the expansion of
the programs accessibility to all students in the state.
10:14:24 AM
SB 32 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:14:39 AM
AT EASE
10:16:49 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to reporting requirements of the
Board of Regents of the University of Alaska."
10:17:22 AM
Senator Gary Stevens, sponsor, explained that SB 36 came
about due to the loss of accreditation by the University of
Alaska Anchorage. He discussed the process of
accreditation, which he deemed as straight forward. He
shared that he had been shocked to learn that the School of
Education at UAA had lost accreditation. He said that the
president of the University at the time had been unaware of
the accreditation loss. He felt that the University,
particularly the president of the University, should be
aware of accreditation standings of all departments and
programs.
10:19:50 AM
Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, discussed version
B of the legislation. He said that the bill would maintain
lines of communication within the University system so that
accreditation loss did not happen again.
10:20:44 AM
Mr. Lamkin discussed a Sectional Analysis for the bill
(copy on file):
CS for Senate Bill 36 (EDC) (Version B)
University of Alaska Accreditation Reporting
Requirements
Sec. 1: AS 14.40.190(b) Amends existing University of
Alaska reporting requirements regarding teacher
training and retention, to specify the report is
required to be submitted to the Legislature (Senate
Secretary / House Chief Clerk) biennially, by the 30th
legislative day of the first regular session of each
new Legislature.
Sec. 2: AS 14.40.190(c) is a new subsection
establishing a requirement for the University of
Alaska to issue a biennial report on the status of all
of its accreditations within the UA system.
The report must be submitted to the Legislature
(Senate Secretary / House Chief Clerk) by the 30th
legislative day of the first regular session of the
legislature; and
The accreditation report is subsequently to be
presented in a formal hearing setting to the education
committees of the legislature, the scheduling for
which is intended to be at the discretion of the
chairs of the committees
10:22:08 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked about Section 2 and the "formal
hearing", he was curious who from the University would
speak at the formal hearing.
Senator Stevens specified that the representative would be
from the Board of Regents.
10:22:42 AM
Senator Wilson asked whether the chairs of the Education
Committee in each house of the legislature would be forced
to officially hear the report, or could they simply
distribute it to committee members.
Senator Stevens asked Senator Wilson to restate the
question.
Senator Wilson asked whether the bill mandated certain work
to Education Committee chairs.
Senator Stevens believed that it should be mandated that
the presentation on accreditation be heard before the
Education Committee. He contended that he could not imagine
an Education Committee chair who would not be interested in
hearing an update on the states University accreditation.
Senator Wilson asked how many programs at the University
required accreditation.
Senator Stevens was not sure of the number but estimated
over 100.
Co-Chair Bishop thought the number was 200.
Mr. Lamkin pointed to the programmatic accreditation
summary in the bill packet (copy on file).
Senator Wilson had seen the document but had not wanted to
count all the listed programs.
Senator Stevens shared that the accredited programs were
various and numerous.
10:25:08 AM
Senator von Imhof asked whether the reports were currently
submitted yearly to the Board of Regents.
Senator Stevens responded that all involved parties had
been surprised by the loss of accreditation. He shared that
there was now a report that went to the board, which was
what would be shared with the legislature.
Senator von Imhof clarified that the report would be seen
by the Board of Regents and then forwarded to the
legislature.
Senator Stevens replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED invited testimony.
10:26:16 AM
SUSAN KALINA, VICE PROVOST FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), testified that the three main
campuses of the University of Alaska had been reporting on
accreditation to the Board of Regents since 2012. She said
that the report was annual and that it covered both status
of accreditation with the Northwest Commission and to the
specialized programmatic accreditations for each program
requiring accreditation. She explained that UAA had 59
programs that had specialized accreditation, through 24
accrediting agencies. She stated that the reports outlined
all recommendations that might be standing for a program.
She related that accreditations were generally on 5, 7, or
10-year cycles, and they cycle ended in a self-study and a
site visit. She relayed that the results of the site visit
went to the agencies who then sent letters to the
University detailing strengths and recommendations for
improvement. She said that issues would be addressed and
discussed at the end of the accreditation cycle.
10:30:28 AM
Senator Stevens thought it was concerning to hear Ms.
Kalina's comment that the reports had been issued to the
Board of Regents since 2012, when accreditation had been
lost in 2019. He queried what could be wring with the
system the University currently had in place. He asked what
had been done by the University to make sure that the loss
of accreditation did not happen again.
Ms. Kalina revealed that the report that was presented to
the Board of Regents was very detailed. She relayed that
at UAA, school deans were required to provide status
updated to the provost at frequent intervals and status
update meetings between the provost, dean, and heads of
programs were frequent. She stressed that if concerns of
any size were identified, the provost informed the
chancellor.
Co-Chair Bishop asked Ms. Kalina to send her comments
regarding enhanced accreditation oversight to the
committee.
10:33:12 AM
AT EASE
10:33:19 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
10:33:45 AM
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Bishop set the bill aside.
SB 36 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 19
"An Act extending the special education service
agency; and providing for an effective date."
10:34:03 AM
Co-Chair Bishop recounted that the committee had heard
public testimony on the bill March 2, 2021.
10:34:48 AM
Senator Gary Stevens, Sponsor, relayed that the bill had to
do with the Special Education Service Agency (SESA), which
was valuable to the students of the state and needed
funding stabilization. He said that the next 8 years held
some difficulties due to the cost of business.
10:35:30 AM
AT EASE
10:35:46 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-LS020\B.3
(Fisher, 3/8/21), (copy on file).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
10:36:13 AM
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, addressed
Amendment 1. She explained that the amendment would change
the formula for funding the agency. She said the current
formula was set at $18.65 times the state student average
daily membership (ADM), the amendment would update that to
$23.13 per ADM.
Ms. Shine referenced a document that showed a graph of the
Special Education Services Agency Fund Balance being
modelled on a graph (copy on file). The sunset review of
SESA had revealed that the statutory funding level had been
flat since 2013; however, during that period there had been
a 63 percent increase in their caseload. She shared that
the executive director for SESA had provided an updated
projection for SESAs funding level, which showed that, at
current levels, funding for the agency would not be
sufficient after 2025.
Ms. Shine continued to address the amendment. She explained
that relayed that the amendment sought to address the
forthcoming budget shortfall for the agency; the estimated
cost increase, based on the ADM is $577,000 per year. She
noted Page 1, line 8 of the amendment reflected the
proposed monetary change. She also cited the effective
dates for the bill one for the sunset of SESA, effective
June 30, 2021; although the funding increase could begin at
the start of the next fiscal year on July 1, 2021.
10:38:42 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked about the fiscal impact of the
amendment.
Ms. Shine responded that the numbers projected
approximately $577,000 per year.
10:39:07 AM
Senator von Imhof asked for verification that version A of
the bill version extended the sunset date to 2028.
Ms. Shine replied that the amendment was to version b of
the bill and would extend the sunset date to 2029.
10:39:40 AM
Senator Olson asked whether the sponsor was in favor of the
amendment.
Ms. Shine said that she had worked with the sponsors staff
to craft the amendment.
10:40:01 AM
Senator Stevens spoke to Amendment 1. He thought the
amendment was marvelous and offered his full support.
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
SB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop shared that the agenda for the following
day included a report on the Alaska Marine Highway System
(AMHS).
ADJOURNMENT
10:41:18 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:41 a.m.