Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/30/2018 01:30 PM 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 | |
| HB212 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB316 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 212
"An Act relating to funding for school construction
and major maintenance; and relating to the regional
educational attendance area and small municipal school
district fund."
2:52:01 PM
Co-Chair Foster passed the gavel to Co-Chair Seaton.
2:52:23 PM
AT EASE
2:52:56 PM
RECONVENED
REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, SPONSOR, provided detail about
the bill. He reported that HB 212 expanded the Regional
Education Attendance Area (REAA)and small municipal school
district fund to include major maintenance in addition to
new school construction. The bill would save the state
money by reducing the need for replacement. The bill was
supported by the Coalition for Education Equity, which was
a coalition comprised of several school districts and was
heavily involved in the Kasayulie decision. He asked his
staff to continue.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, provided
an explanation of changes in the new Committee Substitute
(CS).
Section 1 from version D is eliminated from version U
The new CS supports keeping the two lists for school
construction and major maintenance as they are
currently in statute.
Section 2 is new, amending AS 14.11.030(b) to add
clarifying language that it is the unexpended and
unobligated balance of the fund that may not exceed
$70,000,000.
Section 3 Adds a new subsection AS 14.11.030(e) that
states that not more than 20 percent of the fund
available for appropriation from the REAA and small
municipal school district fund may be used for major
maintenance projects.
Ms. Pierson cited the two spreadsheets that were included
in members' files; "With School Debt Program Reinstated"
and "Without School Debt Program Reinstated" (copy on
file). She continued to address the bill with a prepared
statement:
The school construction and major maintenance grant
programs were the only significant programs that
provided funding for new construction, renovation, or
major maintenance without bonding capacity. A healthy
and continued grant program for construction and
major maintenance provided a vetted solution to the
funding for high priority major maintenance needs such
as boilers, roofs, and other important systems and
safety measures in schools.
Ms. Pierson furthered that in 2010 the legislature passed
SB 237 - School Construction & Costs [CHAPTER 93 SLA 10 -
06/21/2010], which established the REAA and in 2013, five
small municipal districts were included in the fund. The
program was a success and greatly reduced the number of
schools on the school construction grant list. She
explained that the funding was based on the amount of debt
outstanding for municipal schools adjusted by the amount of
money spent on REAA schools and by the percent of student
population. The method provided a consistent level of
funding for REAA and small municipal school districts'
school construction and addressed the concerns raised in
the Kasayulie case. She furthered that in 2015 the
legislature passed SB 64 - School Bond Debt Reimbursement
[CHAPTER 3 SLA 15 - 04/24/2015], which placed a moratorium
on school projects employing debt reimbursement as
authorized by local voters until July 1, 2020. Currently
due to an increase in applications for the major
maintenance grant funding list the bill expanded the REAA
funding which was beneficial for rural and urban Alaska.
She elaborated that by including major maintenance to the
REAA fund other non-REAA projects could take priority on
the major maintenance list.
2:57:52 PM
Vice-Chair Gara MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 212, Work Draft 30-LS0741\U (Laffen,
3/29/18). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster summarized that the bill did not ask for
additional funding, it merely changed how the pie was cut
and how the funds were allocated. He explained that
currently the funding was only authorized for school
construction for REAA schools and the bill requested that
the money could also fund major maintenance. He emphasized
that the bill did not request more money.
Representative Wilson asked for the definition of major
maintenance. Ms. Pierson replied that the definition was in
AS 14.11.013. She read the following from the statute:
(A) avert imminent danger or correct life-threatening
situations;
(B) house students who would otherwise be
unhoused; for purposes of this subparagraph,
students are considered unhoused if the students
attend school in temporary facilities;
(C) protect the structure of existing school
facilities;
(D) correct building code deficiencies that
require major repair or rehabilitation in order
for the facility to continue to be used for the
educational program;
(E) achieve an operating cost savings;
(F) modify or rehabilitate facilities for the
purpose of improving the instructional program;
(G) meet an educational need not specified in (A)
- (F) of this paragraph, identified by the
department;?
Ms. Pierson indicated that the projects had to cost over
$25 thousand. Representative Wilson asked whether the
funding applied to any district or only REAA schools. Ms.
Pierson replied that the funding applied to REAA schools
and the small municipal districts. Representative Wilson
spoke about the state's other project list for school major
maintenance that included many urban schools. She stated
that REAA schools on the state major maintenance list that
were funded through the REAA fund would move off the list
and allow other schools to advance on the list.
3:00:40 PM
Ms. Pierson replied that a major maintenance list existed
and was included in members' packets (copy on file) titled
"Attachment 4 Major Maintenance List FY 19 Final," which
included the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) Capital Improvement Projects (FY 2019) Major
Maintenance Grant Fund. Representative Wilson was trying to
connect the dots and understand the project list Ms.
Pierson was referring to. She used an example with a top
listed school being a REAA school and inquired whether it
could use funding from the REAA fund versus using an
Undesignated General Fund (UGF) only appropriation. Ms.
Pierson replied in the affirmative.
Representative Tilton asked whether there was any
prioritization of maintenance versus new school
construction and if so, she wondered why. Ms. Pierson
explained that the reason the CS included that not more
than 20 percent of the fund available for appropriation
from the REAA and small municipal school district fund may
be used for major maintenance projects was to ensure the
priority was new school construction. The provision
specified "up to 20 percent" because at times of new school
construction utilizing 20 percent might not be possible.
Representative Tilton asked for the average lifespan of a
school building covered by the bill. Ms. Pierson deferred
to the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED).
Vice-Chair Gara recalled that in some cases it had been
easier to move up the major maintenance list if the school
district had more resources to justify its need in the
application, leaving districts with less funding at a
disadvantage on the list. He asked whether the scenario had
been a concern. Ms. Pierson responded that the Major
Maintenance Grant Fund was a grant program requiring
applications. She pointed to AS 14.11.011 that outlined
application requirements. She agreed that a better
application proposal could improve the chances of rising on
the list. However, she pointed to the current major
maintenance list and noted that the first, fifth, seventh,
eighth, fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth schools were
all REAA.
3:04:03 PM
Vice-Chair Gara did not want a REAA school to not be
included on the major maintenance list if REAA funds were
diminished and guessed that was also the sponsors
intention. He deduced that the bill's purpose was to find
an "easier source of funding" for some major maintenance
but not remove REAA schools from the list. Ms. Pierson
answered in the affirmative and noted that was the reason
the sponsor wanted only one list. She detailed that there
was a cap on the REAA small municipal school fund of $70
million. She indicated that in 2011 some funding was moved
out of the fund and it would be "advantageous" to use funds
for maintenance.
Representative Tilton restated her question regarding an
average current building life span to help understand what
the maintenance level was.
TIM MEARIG, SCHOOL FINANCE AND FACILITIES, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, answered that no standard
life span for schools existed. The district used 50 years
as an average. Representative Tilton asked whether the 50
years applied to all school districts. Mr. Mearig responded
that it was difficult to speak to average life spans of
individual buildings but overall the state strove to
achieve 50 years of life for school facilities.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for clarification. He wondered
whether the answer applied to REAA buildings. Mr. Mearig
replied that he was speaking about the average lifespan of
the buildings. He had details on the average age of schools
but was referring to average lifespan.
Representative Guttenberg asked how the list was upgraded.
He looked at the order of the list and asked why school
number 4 that was at the cut off in the prior year was not
always the first on the list the following year. He
inquired how the ranking took place. Mr. Mearig answered
that all the projects were ranked against a series of
criteria by points, which determined priority. He furthered
that if a project that was introduced in a given year had
points exceeding other projects previously on the list it
would out rank the prior year's priority schools.
Representative Guttenberg noted that priorities changed
from year to year. He asked if a school was given a chance
to redo its grant application from one year to the next.
3:10:10 PM
Mr. Mearig responded that every year a district had an
opportunity to apply for the grant. He reported that
several years ago the department allowed districts to
extend the previous year's application for an additional
year, so they would not have to invest in a new application
every year. The scores from the prior year were carried
over for one additional year, but the district would be
able to write a new application with better or different
information in an attempt to elevate the project on the
list.
Co-Chair Seaton OPENED public testimony.
KERRY BOYD, SUPERINTENDENT, YUKON KOYUKUK SCHOOL DISTRICT,
EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
legislation and believed it would help her school district.
The bill would potentially allow for the backlog of major
maintenance projects to be addressed. She stated the need
for the major maintenance grants to be funded. She reported
that the governor had requested $70 million in HB 282 -
Approp: Capital Budget Contingent on Tax. She asked whether
the funding would be included in the capital budget and
asked the committee to pass HB 212.
Representative Guttenberg asked Ms. Boyd to provide a
geographic description of the Yukon Koyukuk school
district. Ms. Boyd complied and noted that she was
presently in the Eagle River office. She listed the
districts that included six urban areas in Fairbanks,
Wasilla, Delta Junction, and Juneau. The ten rural remote
schools in the district were spread out over 70 thousand
square miles; most were accessed by airplane and two were
accessible via road. The district had some older schools
and that were addressed through the major maintenance list.
Co-Chair Seaton CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 212(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 212(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (EED).
3:15:23 PM
AT EASE
3:18:21 PM
RECONVENED