Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
02/14/2024 08:30 AM House 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 | |
| HB81 | |
| HB148 | |
| HB193 | |
| HB155 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to funding for Internet services for
school districts; and providing for an effective
date."
9:15:24 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted there were two amendments for the
bill.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 33-
LS0817\A.31 (Bergerud, 2/13/24) (copy on file):
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 14.03.127 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(d) If the total cost to a school district for
Internet services exceeds the amount awarded to the
district under the federal universal services program
combined with the amount awarded under this section
and the district uses an Internet services provider
that is not approved under the federal universal
services program but that meets the needs of the
district, the district remains eligible to receive
funding under this section, and the school may use
funding received under this section to pay for part of
the cost of using the Internet services provider.
(e) If the total cost to a school district for
Internet services from an Internet services provider
that is not approved under the federal universal
services program is equal to or less than the amount
that would have been awarded to the school under (a)
or (b) of this section, the school district is
eligible to receive an amount equal to the actual cost
for Internet services, up to the amount that the
school district would have been awarded under (a) or
(b) of this section."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained the amendment. He outlined
some of the structural issues he believed to be within the
program that were likely not the intent of the bill
sponsor. He was offering the amendment because he had
compared the Universal Services Program information and all
of the E-Rate billings per eligible school (in the
committee packets) to the Broadband Assistance Grants (BAG)
that some of the school districts receive and had noticed a
couple of things that did not add up. First, he determined
that after large federal and state subsidies there were
rural schools in small districts that still had to pay
around $50,000 for internet. He highlighted that during
public testimony the committee had heard from school
districts that were buying systems for internet that were
not qualifying for a BAG award. He used the Bristol Bay
School District as an example and stated that the total
monthly billing from its service provider was over
$100,000. A 90 percent E-Rate discount from the federal
government was applied to the school district's bill.
Additionally, the school district received $91,000 for BAG.
Representative Stapp underscored that despite all of the
subsidies, the school district paid over $50,000 for
internet the previous year. He relayed that staff within
the school district had told him they were looking at
buying a different service provider because despite the
subsidies, their internet costs were still extremely high.
He stated that the school district had options that worked
better that cost less money; however, due to the BAG
structure, the school district could not receive any state
money for those other options. He believed that if the
state was going to give the school district $91,000 in BAG
funds and the district wanted to move to a service provider
that better met its needs at a cost of $40,000, the state
should be able to give the school district the $40,000
instead. He reasoned the school district would get the
product it wanted, and the state would save money. He noted
there were some issues with the amendment that should be
discussed.
9:18:46 AM
Co-Chair Edgmon felt like they were relitigating the bill.
He had brought the bill to the committee and explained that
the intent was to build off a well established program that
had been through the legislature in a couple of iterations
and involved a very complex application process at the
school district level. He stressed that the program had to
meet a complex federal regulatory process in the Universal
Services Program. He stated that on top of those things
there was the Board of Education regulatory process. He was
opposed to relitigating the bill and spending several
additional hearings on the topic.
Representative Stapp stated it was not his intent to re-
litigate the bill. His intent was to withdraw the amendment
because he did not believe it met his intended goal. He
believed the intent of the program - when it was enacted in
2014 - was to help rural schools get higher speed internet
and act as an equalizer [with urban schools]. He had
listened to the meetings from 2014 and 2019. He clarified
that he was not out to structurally change the program. His
only concern, particularly when it came to the fiscal
aspect of the BAG award, was that the discussion was about
two separate things that did not depend on each other. He
remarked that there were plenty of schools that had E-Rate
awards that did not get BAG money. He elaborated that the
state grant was not dependent on the E-Rate awards. He
reasoned that it was dependent on the fact that E-Rate
awards were based on the concept of megabits per second
(Mbps).
Representative Stapp emphasized there was no mechanism
within the program that considered an internet service
provider that did not maintain a constant speed (i.e., 25
to 100 Mbps). He highlighted a scenario where an ISP
[internet service provider] offered internet at 100 Mbps
that increased to 105 Mbps occasionally and the school
district could no longer receive a BAG award. He knew there
was a problem, but he did not know how to fix it. He
suggested at some point the legislature should look at how
to better deliver the goal of the best internet possible
for school districts. He stated his intent was to try to
deliver a better outcome that districts wanted and to leave
the decision up to districts. He believed it would cost the
districts and the state less money. He highlighted the goal
of lowering the fixed costs paid by districts via the
program.
9:22:02 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted there were two avenues. Withdraw the
amendment or explore the issue further.
Co-Chair Edgmon wanted to respect Representative Stapp's
ability to investigate the bill; however, he reminded
committee members of the hard deadline. He pointed out that
there was separate legislation [SB 140] that would need to
go through a conference committee if it were to supersede
HB 193. He underscored that time was of the essence. He
remarked that virtually every school district had visited
the building in the past couple of weeks and he had 100
conversations that had touched on the issue. He was not
saying the concerns addressed by Representative Stapp were
not legitimate; however, none of the school districts had
brought up the issue to that extent. He believed the
recognition was that 100 Mbps was the best the state could
do, but in a perfect world it would be much higher. He
stated there was a large fiscal note attached to the bill.
Co-Chair Edgmon recognized the bill was imperfect in nature
as had been the case upon introduction in 2014 and when
amended in 2020. The hope was that the billions of dollars
in federal funds primarily coming through the Broadband
Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program would mean
the state did not have to put undesignated general fund
(UGF) money into supporting the BAG program. He believed
the discussion was worthy, but he stressed that the
committee could spend a lot of time in the minutia of the
bill and still not have a perfect outcome. He stated the
bill helped a lot of schools and may not perfectly fit the
scope of every school; however, the business managers and
superintendents in his district had told him it was good
enough. He highlighted that missing the deadline would mean
losing an entire year.
Co-Chair Foster echoed Co-Chair Edgmon's comments in the
sense that the program had existed for some time, and he
did not want the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
He wanted to give DEED time to elaborate on Representative
Stapp's comments that there did not appear to be an easy
fix. He suspected the department would likely say the same
thing.
9:25:11 AM
Representative Stapp asked to hear from individuals with
DEED.
LAURAL SHOOP, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced herself.
KAREN MORRISON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FINANCE AND
FACILITIES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT,
introduced herself.
Co-Chair Foster asked if there was an easy fix to the issue
brought up by Representative Stapp.
Ms. Shoop believed the intent of the amendment was for
schools to have alternatives to the federally approved
internet service providers. She explained that the E-Rate
program had been long-established by the federal
government. She detailed that internet service providers
were required to register with the federal E-Rate program
in order to be considered in the application process. There
was a very specific set of forms school districts were
required to use when applying for the E-Rate program. She
believed the amendment was intended for internet service
providers who were not registered under the federal
services program to be eligible for school BAG funding.
Representative Stapp agreed. He clarified that he did not
necessarily mean it should be a requirement for the
internet service provider to be registered. He thought
there were benefits of having the provider registered. He
stated that at the end of the day it did not matter. He
explained that the intent of the amendment was to give a
school district the ability to use a service provider that
best suited its needs. He suggested that if the cost was
less, the state should give the school districts the lesser
amount of money to cover the entirety of their cost as long
as it was less than the state would have given school
districts under the BAG program. He was not sure how to
craft it properly. He asked the department why a hard cap
on the Mbps did not work with different service providers.
Ms. Shoop deferred the question to a colleague.
FAYE TANNER, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), asked to hear
the question again.
Representative Stapp considered the scenario where the
eligible BAG award was increased to 100 Mbps. He asked
whether an internet service provider that had a service
rate that fluctuated between 80 and 200 was eligible to use
BAG money because the rate was not a consistent number.
Ms. Tanner responded that under current statute anything
exceeding 100 Mbps would not qualify. She stated it was one
of the issues several school districts were having with
the use of Starlink or speed that exceeded 100 Mbps. The
current speed was 25 Mbps.
9:29:44 AM
Representative Stapp relayed that he had talked to many
school district business managers about their upcoming
bids. He relayed that some of the school districts were
planning on changing their bids. He WITHDREW Amendment 1.
Representative Coulombe WITHDREW Amendment 2, 33-LS0817\A.7
(Klein/Bergerud, 2/12/24)(copy on file).
Co-Chair Foster highlighted that the fiscal notes had been
reviewed the previous week.
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to REPORT HB 193 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the forthcoming fiscal
note and the ability for Legislative Legal Services to make
technical and conforming changes.
HB 193 was REPORTED out of committee with eight "do pass"
recommendations, two "amend" recommendations, and one "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Education and Early
Development.
9:31:46 AM
AT EASE
9:33:28 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 193 Amendments 1-2 021324.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 193 |
| HB 155 Amendment 1 Hannan 021324.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 193 Amendment 1 Backup DEED BAG 021424.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 193 |
| HB 193 Amendment 1 Backup E-Rate_Recipient_Details_And_Commitments_20240125_E-Rate_FY2023_School_Internet.pdf |
HFIN 2/14/2024 8:30:00 AM |
HB 193 |