Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/17/2002 05:44 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 2003
"An Act relating to municipal bond reimbursement for
school construction; and providing for an effective
date."
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON reviewed SCS HB 451 (RLS), which
would be used in the creation of a proposed committee
substitute to HB 2003 [work draft, 22LS1810\C]. The
legislation authorizes local governments to go out to vote
for bonds. He noted that the Senate adopted the following
language:
(1) be
(A) a rural educational attendance area;
(B) a municipal school district and, as of June
30 of the
previous fiscal year, have a population of less
than 1,000; or
(C) a municipal school district that operates
schools on a military reservation; and
Senator Torgerson explained that two local government
reimbursement programs would be established. Existing
programs would be funded at a 70 percent level and the
appropriation would be open-ended for four years. A new
program would be created at 60 percent, which would require
the Department of Education and Early Development to review
the program for compliance. The new language would read:
(11) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2) - (5) [(j)(2),
(3), (5)] of this section, and after projects funded by
the bonds, notes, or other indebtedness have been
approved by the commissioner, 70 percent of payments
made by a municipality during the fiscal year for the
retirement of principal and interest on outstanding
bonds, notes, or other indebtedness authorized by the
qualified voters of the municipality on or after June
30, 1999, but before July 1, 2006 [July 1, 2008], to
pay costs of school construction, additions to schools,
and major rehabilitation projects and education related
facilities that exceed $200,000, are approved under AS
14.07.020(a)(11), and are not reimbursed under (n) or
(o) of this section;
(12) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2), (3), and (5)
[(j)(2), (3), (5)] of this section, 60 percent of
payments made by a municipality during the fiscal year
for the retirement of principal and interest on
outstanding bonds, notes, or other indebtedness
authorized by the qualified voters of the municipality
on or after June 30, 1999, but before July 1, 2006, to
pay costs of school construction, additions to schools,
and major rehabilitation projects and education related
facilities that exceed $200,000, are reviewed
[approved] under AS 14.07.020(a)(11), and are not
reimbursed under (n) or (o) of this section.
Senator Torgerson observed that authorization for Fairbanks
was extended from July 1, 2004 to July 1, 2006 on page 8. He
added that July 1, 2008 was also changed to July 1, 2006 on
page 10 lines, 6, 14, and 29. "In the principle amount of at
least $240 million dollars" was deleted on line 25. He
summarized that bonding is contingent on the bond package
passing.
Vice-Chair Bunde questioned who would be excluded under the
grant criteria on page 1. Co-Chair Mulder explained that the
concern with military reservation schools is that they are
not owned by the local school district, which would
therefore be hesitant to contribute local money. The
legislation would upgrade military schools, so that they
could be transferred from the Department of Education and
Early Development to local school districts for
authorization and oversight. Once this occurs the local
school district would own the schools and be responsible for
the upgrade.
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, noted that the version
passed by the Senate (SCS HB 451 (RLS) would not provide
continued funding opportunities for rural schools. The
Administration would support the linking of the two concepts
together [funding for rural and urban schools]. Urban school
districts would be able to direct their own schedules and do
projects on the timing that works best for them. She
observed that in the past there has been a major debt
reimbursement program every few years, the debt
reimbursement programs have driven the timing of schedules
that come under the reimbursement programs. A different
percent of support from local districts would occur
depending on whether the school falls within the current
statutory restrictions or the project addresses future
growth needs.
Co-Chair Williams requested that Ms. McConnel point out
those areas of the bill and provide a spreadsheet for
Committee members. Ms. McConnell replied that she would
provide that information.
Ms. McConnell added that the Administration had support from
the Anchorage School district for the concept of allowing
them to drive their own schedule and work on a statewide
bases. A process for stabilization and easier planning for
school funding would be a benefit, which would be well
received by the state's school districts.
Ms. McConnell observed that the initial recommendation was
to put in place something that could be done in five funding
cycles. The GO bond bill would occur in the first year,
which would address rural schools. Anchorage and Juneau
already have projects approved by the voters. Other
communities, such as the Mat-Su Borough, would just be
getting their processes underway to do their bond issuance
over this cycle. Five years was picked in order to get past
the "first shot at all of this" and allow school districts
to work the process into their planning cycles.
HB 2003 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|