Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/05/2018 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 | |
| SB104 | |
| SB216 | |
| SB92 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 5, 2018
9:04 a.m.
9:04:59 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Natasha von Imhof
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Donny Olson
ALSO PRESENT
Brittany Hartmann, Staff, Senator Anna MacKinnon; Jonathan
King, Staff, Senator Natasha Von Imhof; Marcy Herman,
Special Assistant, Department of Education and Early
Development; Rachel Hanke, Staff, Senator Peter Micciche;
Alexei Painter, Analyst, Legislative Finance Division.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Heidi Teshner, Director, Finance and Support Services
Division, Department of Education and Early Development;
Peter Caltagirone, Attorney General's Office, Anchorage;
Michael Stanker, Department of Law, Anchorage; Kris Hess,
Division of Mining, Land, and Water, DNR, Anchorage; Marla
Thompson, Division of Motor Vehicles, Anchorage; Mindy
Lobaugh, School Finance Specialist, Department of Education
and Early Development.
SUMMARY
SB 92 VESSELS: REGISTRATION/TITLES; DERELICTS
CSSB 92(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Natural
Resources; one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Administration; one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Natural
Resources; and one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN 3(DEC).
SB 104 EDUCATION CURRICULUM
CSSB 104(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with two new
fiscal impact notes from the Department of
Education and Early Development.
SB 216 SCHOOL FUNDING FOR CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS
SB 216 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 104
"An Act relating to the duties of the state Board of
Education and Early Development; and relating to
school curriculum."
9:06:29 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop stated that there were two fiscal notes,
and outlined the fiscals notes.
9:08:11 AM
BRITTANY HARTMANN, STAFF, SENATOR ANNA MACKINNON, discussed
the bill. She stated that curriculum was one of the "vital
levels that we need to pull" in order to improve education
and educational outcomes for all Alaska students. She
stated that the bill sought to improve educational outcomes
for all Alaska students by providing the best curriculum
available. She remarked that the bill charged the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) and
the Board of Education to find and approve of the best
curriculum in the world. The curriculum would be made
available to five school districts through and application
process; and would be tested in a three-year pilot program
for its appropriateness and effectiveness. She stated that
the curriculum would become available to all districts
after the pilot program. She announced that there would be
incentive payments to those participating schools.
9:09:15 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that there was a portion about
Individual Education Programs (IEPs); and a reporting
mechanism for DEED and parents to understand the curriculum
used in all districts. Ms. Hartman replied in the
affirmative.
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to REPORT SB 104 from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 104(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two new fiscal impact notes
from the Department of Education and Early Development.
9:10:17 AM
AT EASE
9:13:23 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 216
"An Act relating to the calculation of state aid for
schools that consolidate; relating to the
determination of the number of schools in a district;
and providing for an effective date."
9:13:55 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT the committee substitute
for SB 216, Work Draft 30-LS1483\T (Bruce, 4/3/18).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
9:14:13 AM
JONATHAN KING, STAFF, SENATOR NATASHA VON IMHOF, outlined
the Explanation of Changes (copy on file):
Section 4
Page 3, lines 15-31 through page 4, line 1: Adds
subsections that will allow the Department of
Administration to issue a "To Title Issued"
registration in the event that they are not satisfied
with proof of ownership or believe there may be an
undisclosed security interest. A certificate of title
will be issued if the applicant presents sufficient
documentation or if the "No Title Issued" registration
goes uncontested for three years. This section will
also ensure that the Department will not be held
liable for any damages or costs.
Section 6
Page 4, line 10: Removed the amendment to increase the
fee for motorized boat registration, registration
renewal, and transfer of registration. The fee will
remain as it is in current statute: $24. The increased
fees would not have benefitted the derelict vessels
program and therefore were removed from the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Stevens queried the difference between closures of
schools and consolidation of schools. He shared that in his
district, there were three larger communities and several
villages. He shared that there was a constant process of
closing village schools, because of their smaller
populations. He noted that there were very small schools
that opened and closed consistently. He wondered whether a
district could take advantage of a closure of a district
school, and consider that a "consolidation" to receive
additional funding under the bill. Mr. King replied that
the question had multiple pieces. He shared that the idea
behind consolidation was that in many districts with
multiple schools, the districts had attendance boundaries.
He noted that the consolidation was related to where a
school district was closing a school that had an attendance
boundary; therefore, those attendance boundaries were
subsumed into another. Those children were then assigned to
a new base school. He noted that transportation would then
be provided within those boundaries. He shared that a rural
environment created that question of whether those students
were formally assigned to a different school. He furthered
that closing the school, and providing the students with
distance education would not result in a new school
boundary area. He felt that it would not be consolidation.
He deferred to DEED for further information.
9:20:09 AM
MARCY HERMAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, deferred to Ms. Teshner.
9:20:15 AM
AT EASE
9:22:41 AM
RECONVENED
9:22:45 AM
Senator Stevens felt that the issue was important. He
understood that the bill had a good intent of effecting
urban Alaska. He stressed that any law would have an impact
on rural Alaska. He restated his question.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the bill was voluntary
or mandatory.
9:24:34 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, DIRECTOR, FINANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
(via teleconference), stated that the bill was a voluntary
program.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted the concerns about the communities
with a smaller number of students.
Senator Stevens queried the difference between closure and
consolidation. Ms. Teshner replied that there could be
consolidation if there were multiple schools within a
community. She furthered that there would not be a process
for consolidation for communities with only one school,
unless the district chose to change the grades served
within a school.
Co-Chair Hoffman surmised that the bill would not affect a
school district, but rather it would effect a community. He
noted that his community had several school districts with
schools in multiple communities, therefore the bill did not
allow for consolidation in the school districts. Ms.
Teshner responded replied that most of the schools within
the rural communities were already K-12 schools, so they
would be consolidated under the legislation. She stressed
that the bill was directed at communities with multiple
elementary, middle, or high schools.
Co-Chair Hoffman recalled a school district that was
looking at the possibility of bringing the high schools
into one community. He wondered whether that would be
considered consolidation. Ms. Teshner replied that it would
not be considered consolidation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the bill did not prohibit
or allow consolidation. She stated that the bill only
addressed stepping down of funding. She also stressed that
it was a voluntary program, and would largely affect the
buildings in the larger communities.
Vice-Chair Bishop stressed that the program was voluntary.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the buildings in larger
school districts currently remained open to prevent the
loss of funding.
Senator Micciche recalled that he had several small schools
in his district. He wondered whether those schools would be
affected by the time limit. Ms. Teshner replied that those
schools would not be subject to the seven year timeline.
9:30:14 AM
Senator von Imhof remarked that there were provisions and
statutes in place to address the ten student threshold
currently in place with its own rules and parameters.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the prioritization process and
how the laws would interact with each other. Ms. Teshner
replied that choosing to consolidate under the bill would
not trigger the current "hold harmless" provision. She
stated that it would be one or the other, and it would be
the decision of the school district.
Senator von Imhof surmised that a school at the nine
student threshold could choose, depending on their
circumstances, which statute they wished to utilize. Ms.
Teshner replied in the affirmative for a community that was
able to have consolidation.
Senator von Imhof queried the definition of a community.
MINDY LOBAUGH, SCHOOL FINANCE SPECIALIST, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference),
replied that there was a current hold harmless provision
for the school size factor. She stated that the rural
communities typical would go through that process. The
current bill would help the larger districts who did not
access the current provision.
9:35:34 AM
Senator Stevens surmised that the village were a part of
the district, but not a part of the community. Ms. Teshner
agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that the definition of
community was used in regulation that stood up other
portions of statute. She stated that the regulation for the
bill had yet to be written.
Senator Stevens felt that superintendents could find a
loophole in the law, if it benefited their districts.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted greater clarity. She queried the
challenge for some of the urban districts.
Senator von Imhof shared that the idea was brought forward
when the Anchorage School District had a presentation for
the Anchorage legislators, when they shared that there was
excess capacity due to population migration within and
outside of the city.
9:40:04 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there would be less cost
for taxpayers in any individual districts.
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered whether the legislation would
affect charter schools.
Senator von Imhof replied that she believed that it would
apply to charter schools.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked whether the charter schools would be
consolidated with other charter schools.
Senator von Imhof stated that consolidation could occur if
there was a building that could pass education
specifications.
9:41:08 AM
AT EASE
9:53:18 AM
RECONVENED
9:53:49 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to make sure that the legal team
was able to examine the legislation.
Mr. King reiterated that the bill was a voluntary
consolidation program. The intent was to add a new tool to
the toolbox, and not force consolidation.
SB 216 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 92
"An Act relating to abandoned and derelict vessels;
relating to the registration of vessels; relating to
certificates of title for vessels; relating to the
duties of the Department of Administration; relating
to the duties of the Department of Natural Resources;
establishing the derelict vessel prevention program;
establishing the derelict vessel prevention program
fund; and providing for an effective date."
9:56:08 AM
AT EASE
10:03:09 AM
RECONVENED
10:03:20 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT the committee substitute
for SB 92, Work Draft 30-LS048\N (Bruce, 4/2/18).
Co-Chair MacKinnon OBJECTED for discussion.
10:03:39 AM
RACHEL HANKE, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, discussed the
changes in the committee substitute.
Co-Chair MacKinnon WITHDREW the OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Micciche recalled that the 24 and under feet was
removed from needing a title. He noted that it was
voluntary to title that vessel. He noted that an
undocumented vessel saw no change on the registration or
title under 24 feet. He stated that the only difference was
the registration fee changes.
Vice-Chair Bishop thanked the bill sponsor and staff.
10:06:14 AM
PETER CALTAGIRONE, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), stated that he had no comments.
MICHAEL STANKER, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), had no comment.
KRIS HESS, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND, AND WATER, DNR,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), had no comment.
MARLA THOMPSON, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), had no comment
10:07:37 AM
ALEXEI PAINTER, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
discussed the fiscal notes.
Senator Stevens understood that it was a necessary step for
addressing the problem. He asserted that none of the money
collected would go to assisting of the removal of vessels.
Senator Stevens repeated his question. Mr. Stanker deferred
to Mr. Caltagirone
Mr. Caltagirone explained that additional funds would need
to be appropriated for vessel cleanup. He agreed to provide
further information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for preparation to answer that
question on the floor. Senator Micciche replied in the
affirmative.
10:12:49 AM
Mr. Painter explained that Section 23 noted that one of the
uses of the fund was to reimburse state agencies and
municipalities for expenses related to removal of derelict
vessels from the water of the state. Therefore, the money
could be used to remove derelict vessels.
Co-Chair MacKinnon appreciated the effort to clean the
abandoned derelict vessels.
Senator Micciche noted that the funds were small, but the
main value of the bill was the education.
Co-Chair MacKinnon recalled that the Coast Guard could
speak to the issues.
Senator Micciche stated that he always hoped that the
government not be involved in issues unless necessary.
MOVED to REPORT CSSB 92(FIN) out of committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 92(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Natural Resources; one new fiscal impact note
from the Department of Administration; one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Natural Resources; and
one previously published fiscal impact note: FN 3(DEC).
10:16:42 AM
AT EASE
10:18:50 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the afternoon's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
10:19:18 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:19 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS SB 92 FIN v. T Explanation.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| CS SB 92 FIN v. T.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| CS SB 216 FIN v.T Explanation.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 216 |
| CS SB 216 FIN work draft v. T.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 216 |
| CSSB 104 Letter of Support ACSA 4.4.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 104 |
| SB 216 2018 ASA SB216 comment.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 216 |
| CS SB 92 FIN v. N.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |
| SB 216 Definition of School Consolidation.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 216 |
| SB 92 Explanation of Changes Ver. U to Ver. N.pdf |
SFIN 4/5/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 92 |