Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
04/15/2019 09:00 AM Senate EDUCATION
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 | |
| SB64 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Professional Teaching Practices Commission | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 64-REPEAL STATE DEBT REIMBURSE FOR SCHOOLS
5:02:15 PM
CHAIR STEVENS announced the consideration of SB 64. He stated
his intent to report the bill out of committee.
5:02:55 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 31-
GS1091\A.1, Caouette, 3/21/19:
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR COSTELLO
TO: SB 64
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "repealing"
Insert "relating to"
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "former"
Page 3, lines 2 - 27:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 4. AS 14.11.100(a) is amended to read:
(a) During each fiscal year, the state shall
allocate to a municipality that is a school district
the following sums:
(1) payments made by the municipality
during the fiscal year two years earlier for the
retirement of principal and interest on outstanding
bonds, notes, or other indebtedness incurred before
July 1, 1977, to pay costs of school construction;
(2) 90 percent of
(A) payments made by the municipality
during the fiscal year two years earlier for the
retirement of principal and interest on
outstanding bonds, notes, or other indebtedness
incurred after June 30, 1977, and before July 1,
1978, to pay costs of school construction;
(B) cash payments made after June 30,
1976, and before July 1, 1978, by the
municipality during the fiscal year two years
earlier to pay costs of school construction;
(3) 90 percent of
(A) payments made by the municipality
during the fiscal year two years earlier for the
retirement of principal and interest on
outstanding bonds, notes, or other indebtedness
incurred after June 30, 1978, and before
January 1, 1982, to pay costs of school
construction projects approved under
AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(B) cash payments made after June 30,
1978, and before July 1, 1982, by the
municipality during the fiscal year two years
earlier to pay costs of school construction
projects approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(4) subject to (h) and (i) of this section,
up to 90 percent of
(A) payments made by the municipality
during the current fiscal year for the retirement
of principal and interest on outstanding bonds,
notes, or other indebtedness incurred after
December 31, 1981, and authorized by the
qualified voters of the municipality before
July 1, 1983, to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects that exceed $25,000 and
are approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(B) cash payments made after June 30,
1982, and before July 1, 1983, by the
municipality during the fiscal year two years
earlier to pay costs of school construction,
additions to schools, and major rehabilitation
projects that exceed $25,000 and are approved
under AS 14.07.020(a)(11); and
(C) payments made by the municipality
during the current fiscal year for the retirement
of principal and interest on outstanding bonds,
notes, or other indebtedness to pay costs of
school construction, additions to schools, and
major rehabilitation projects that exceed $25,000
and are submitted to the department for approval
under AS 14.07.020(a)(11) before July 1, 1983,
and approved by the qualified voters of the
municipality before October 15, 1983, not to
exceed a total project cost of (i) $6,600,000 if
the annual growth rate of average daily
membership of the municipality is more than seven
percent but less than 12 percent, or (ii)
$20,000,000 if the annual growth rate of average
daily membership of the municipality is 12
percent or more; payments made by a municipality
under this subparagraph on total project costs
that exceed the amounts set out in (i) and (ii)
of this subparagraph are subject to (5)(A) of
this subsection;
(5) subject to (h) - (j) of this section,
80 percent of
(A) payments made by the 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
(i) after June 30, 1983, but
before March 31, 1990, to pay costs of
school construction, additions to schools,
and major rehabilitation projects that
exceed $25,000 and are approved under
AS 14.07.020(a)(11); or
(ii) before July 1, 1989, and
reauthorized before November 1, 1989, to pay
costs of school construction, additions to
schools, and major rehabilitation projects
that exceed $25,000 and are approved under
AS 14.07.020(a)(11); and
(B) cash payments made after June 30,
1983, by the municipality during the fiscal year
two years earlier to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects that exceed $25,000 and
are approved by the department before July 1,
1990, under AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(6) subject to (h) - (j) and (m) of this
section, 70 percent of payments made by the
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 April 30, 1993,
but before July 1, 1996, to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects that exceed $200,000 and are
approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(7) subject to (h) - (j) and (m) of this
section, 70 percent of payments made by the
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 after March 31, 1990, but
before April 30, 1993, to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects;
(8) subject to (h), (i), (j)(2) - (5), and
(n) 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
the 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
July 1, 1995, but before July 1, 1998, to pay costs of
school construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects that exceed $200,000 and are
approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(9) subject to (h), (i), (j)(2) - (5), and
(n) 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
the 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
July 1, 1998, but before July 1, 2006, to pay costs of
school construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects that exceed $200,000 and are
approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11);
(10) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2) - (5)
[, AND (o)] 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 the 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, 1998, to pay costs of school
construction, additions to schools, and major
rehabilitation projects that exceed $200,000, are
approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11), and are not
reimbursed under (n) of this section;
(11) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2) - (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 January 1, 2005, 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) 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 January 1, 2005, to pay
costs of school construction, additions to schools,
and major rehabilitation projects and education-
related facilities that exceed $200,000, are reviewed
under AS 14.07.020(a)(11), and are not reimbursed
under (n) [OR (o)] of this section;
(13) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2) - (5)
[, AND (p)] of this section, and after projects funded
by the tax exempt 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 tax exempt bonds, notes, or other
indebtedness authorized by the qualified voters of the
municipality on or after June 30, 1999, but before
October 31, 2006, 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;
(14) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2), (3),
and (5) [, AND (p)] of this section, 60 percent of
payments made by a municipality during the fiscal year
for the retirement of principal and interest on
outstanding tax exempt bonds, notes, or other
indebtedness authorized by the qualified voters of the
municipality on or after June 30, 1999, but before
October 31, 2006, to pay costs of school construction,
additions to schools, and major rehabilitation
projects and education-related facilities that exceed
$200,000, are reviewed under AS 14.07.020(a)(11), and
are not reimbursed under (n) [OR (o)] of this section;
(15) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2) - (5)
[, AND (q)] of this section, and after projects funded
by the bonds, notes, or other indebtedness have been
approved by the commissioner, 90 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 October 31, 2006, 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), meet the 10 percent
participating share requirement for a municipal school
district under the former participating share amounts
required under AS 14.11.008(b), and are not reimbursed
under (n) [OR (o)] of this section;
(16) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2) - (5)
of this section, and after projects funded by the tax
exempt 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
tax exempt bonds, notes, or other indebtedness
authorized by the qualified voters of the municipality
on or after October 1, 2006, but before January 1,
2015, to pay costs of school construction, additions
to schools, and major rehabilitation projects and
education-related facilities that exceed $200,000 and
[,] are approved under AS 14.07.020(a)(11) [, AND ARE
NOT REIMBURSED UNDER (o) OF THIS SECTION];
(17) subject to (h), (i), and (j)(2), (3),
and (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
tax exempt bonds, notes, or other indebtedness
authorized by the qualified voters of the municipality
on or after October 1, 2006, but before January 1,
2015, to pay costs of school construction, additions
to schools, and major rehabilitation projects and
education-related facilities that exceed $200,000 and
[,] are reviewed under AS 14.07.020(a)(11) [, AND ARE
NOT REIMBURSED UNDER (o) OF THIS SECTION.
(18) REPEALED
(19) SUBJECT TO (h), (i), AND (j)(2) - (5)
OF THIS SECTION, AND AFTER PROJECTS FUNDED BY THE TAX
EXEMPT BONDS, NOTES, OR OTHER INDEBTEDNESS HAVE BEEN
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER, 50 PERCENT OF PAYMENTS
MADE BY A MUNICIPALITY DURING THE FISCAL YEAR FOR THE
RETIREMENT OF PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING
TAX EXEMPT BONDS, NOTES, OR OTHER INDEBTEDNESS
AUTHORIZED BY THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY
ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2020, 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 (o)
OF THIS SECTION;
(20) SUBJECT TO (h), (i), AND (j)(2), (3),
AND (5) OF THIS SECTION, 40 PERCENT OF PAYMENTS MADE
BY A MUNICIPALITY DURING THE FISCAL YEAR FOR THE
RETIREMENT OF PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING
TAX EXEMPT BONDS, NOTES, OR OTHER INDEBTEDNESS
AUTHORIZED BY THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY
ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2020, TO PAY COSTS OF SCHOOL
CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS TO SCHOOLS, AND MAJOR
REHABILITATION PROJECTS AND EDUCATION-RELATED
FACILITIES THAT EXCEED $200,000, ARE REVIEWED UNDER
AS 14.07.020(a)(11), AND ARE NOT REIMBURSED UNDER (o)
OF THIS SECTION].
* Sec. 5. AS 14.11.100(s) is amended to read:
(s) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the commissioner may not approve an application for
bond debt reimbursement made by a municipality for
school construction or major maintenance for
indebtedness authorized by the qualified voters of the
municipality on or after January 1, 2015 [, BUT BEFORE
JULY 1, 2020].
* Sec. 6. AS 14.11.102(c) is amended to read:
(c) The commissioner may not allocate funds to a
municipality under AS 14.11.100 for the retirement of
the principal of and interest on outstanding tax-
exempt bonds, notes, or other indebtedness authorized
by the qualified voters of the municipality on or
after January 1, 2015 [, BUT BEFORE JULY 1, 2020]."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, lines 9 - 14:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, line 15:
Delete "14.11.100, 14.11.102, and AS 37.15.011(b)(2)"
Insert "14.11.100(o), 14.11.100(p), and 14.11.100(q)"
Page 6, following line 15:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 10. Section 6, ch. 3, SLA 2015, is repealed.
* Sec. 11. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY. This Act applies to bond debt
reimbursement for school construction and major maintenance
incurred by a municipality on or after the effective date
of this Act."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, line 21:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 13. This Act takes effect July 1, 2019."
5:03:03 PM
CHAIR STEVENS objected for purposes of discussion.
5:03:17 PM
At ease.
5:04:27 PM
CHAIR STEVENS reconvened the meeting.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Senator Mia Costello, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, explained that Amendment 1 will not affect
the moratorium after January 1, 2015. It would reinstate the
language for the debt on bond debt that was incurred prior to
that date. He explained that municipalities issued bond debt
under an agreement with [the State of Alaska] for reimbursement
at a certain percentage ranging from 60 to 90 percent. Amendment
1 would [prevent the bill from affecting the state's share of
bond debt that is outstanding and would instead limit the repeal
of the bond reimbursement program to bonds issued on or after
January 1, 2015]. Amendment 1 also contains substantial language
that references all the debt that was incurred before January 1,
2015, he said.
CHAIR STEVENS recapped that Amendment 1 would not have any
impact after January 1, 2019, but it would reinstate prior
arrangements on [school construction bond] debt.
MR. WRIGHT answered yes, subject to appropriation by the
legislature.
SENATOR BEGICH asked for clarification that the bill with
Amendment 1 would still terminate the program, but not the prior
debt for municipalities.
MR. WRIGHT replied that is correct.
5:06:20 PM
SENATOR BEGICH asked for clarification that debt payments would
still be subject to appropriation for those prior years.
MR. WRIGHT replied that is correct.
SENATOR STEVENS acknowledged that this was short notice on a
complex issue.
5:06:48 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said she understood that the state would still be
responsible for [school construction bond debt] prior to 2015.
She further understood that a moratorium has been in effect
since 2015. She asked whether Amendment 1 would repeal the
moratorium going forward. If so, organized boroughs would pay
100 percent of school construction costs and unorganized
boroughs would still be able to access 100 percent of state
funding for their capital projects for schools.
MR. WRIGHT deferred to the department, but he understood that
was correct.
SENATOR BEGICH remarked that even the unorganized boroughs are
required to do some minimal capital matching, perhaps two or
five percent.
MR. WRIGHT responded that Amendment 1 has some references to
subsections [AS 14.11.100} (o), (p), and (q) [related to the
amount of school construction projects approved for
reimbursement by the department] scattered throughout the bill.
In his discussions with the department prior to this hearing,
DEED indicated its preference to retain these references because
of some nuances with the school bond debt reimbursement program.
The department can further explain the rationale for retaining
the references. In response to Chair Stevens, he directed
attention to page and line references in Amendment 1:
Page 4, line 16: [,AND (o)]
Page 5, line 1
Page 5, line 8
CHAIR STEVENS clarified that the concern was about "and."
MR. WRIGHT reiterated the references were to subsections (o),
(p), and (q). He referred to page 5, line 10.
CHAIR STEVENS said he didn't see an (o) there
MR. WRIGHT replied that page 5, line 10 referenced subsection
(p).
MR. WRIGHT directed attention to the following references in
Amendment 1:
Page 5, line 18: [OR (o)]
Page 5, line 19: [AND (p)]
Page 5, line 26: [OR (o)]
Page 5, line 27: [AND (q)]
Page 6, line 5: [OR (o)]
MR. WRIGHT referred to page 6, line 15 of Amendment 1. He said
the department recommended this language be reinstated and not
be deleted:
[,AND ARE NOT REIMBURSED UNDER (o) OF THIS SECTION].
MR. WRIGHT referred to page 6, lines 22-23. He said the
department recommended the following language be reinstated:
[, AND ARE NOT REIMBURSED UNDER (o) OF THS SECTION.
CHAIR STEVENS asked for further clarification that this language
would not be deleted.
MR. WRIGHT said that is correct.
MR. WRIGHT referred to page 8 line [5] of Amendment 1. He
explained that [language on line 5 would be deleted, which read:
"14.11.100, 14.11.102, and AS 37.15.011(b)(2)."
He referred to language on page 8, line 6, which would not be
deleted. It read:
Insert "14.11.100(o), 14.11.100(p) and 14.11.100(q).
CHAIR STEVENS asked for further clarification on the reference.
MR. WRIGHT remarked that the department just informed him of
these changes.
CHAIR STEVENS asked the department to explain the recommended
changes.
5:12:44 PM
ELWIN BLACKWELL, School Finance Manager, Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED), Juneau, said that subsections (o),
(p), and (q) in Amendment 1, reference the part of the statute
that sets some limits on the amount of principal that the
department could approve for capital projects. The department
noticed that subsections (m) and (n) were left in Amendment 1.
These subsections also set limits on how much principal the
department could approve during those earlier timeframes.
MR. BLACKWELL explained that it didn't seem reasonable to leave
some limitations in but remove others. One concerns in removing
those limitations was the possibility of some prior voter
authorization for bonds not yet sold so jurisdictions could
later request department approval. While he was unsure if any
prior bond approval exists, the possibility exists, he said.
Therefore, the department recommended leaving that boundary in
place since it would not affect the purpose. Amendment 1 would
keep any new [state school debt reimbursement] from occurring,
but the program would remain active to reimburse the current
outstanding [school construction] debt.
5:14:46 PM
HEIDI TESHNER, Director, Administrative Services Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), Juneau, in
response to an earlier question from Senator Hughes, explained
that the major maintenance and school construction program
currently set out in statute would continue. REAAs [Regional
Educational Attendance Areas], cities and boroughs can apply for
reimbursement under the program. These entities could still
request reimbursement for a school construction project that is
not debt related.
SENATOR HUGHES recalled that Senator Begich indicated that
perhaps some of the borough schools have a requirement for
matching funds.
MS. TESHNER replied that any project approved under the major
maintenance or school construction grant programs have a
participating share, similar to matching funds. She reported
that the participating share was 20 percent for municipalities
and two percent for the REAAs.
CHAIR STEVENS asked whether the department agreed to the changes
that Mr. Wright specifically identified for Amendment 1.
MS. TESHNER answered that the department approved the changes.
SENATOR BEGICH asked whether a conceptual amendment to Amendment
1 was required to incorporate those changes.
CHAIR STEVENS replied yes.
5:16:09 PM
SENATOR BEGICH moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 [for
Legislative Legal Services to incorporate the changes Mr. Wright
described for Amendment 1].
CHAIR STEVENS reiterated the motion was to offer Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 to incorporate the changes outlined
by Mr. Wright.
5:16:17 PM
SENATOR BEGICH explained that Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 would ensure that the language previously identified
by Mr. Wright was appropriately removed from Amendment 1.
5:16:40 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO suggested an amendment to Conceptual Amendment
1 to Amendment 1 to retain sections (o), (p), and (q) in
[Amendment 1].
CHAIR STEVENS found no objection and Conceptual Amendment 1, as
amended, to Amendment 1 was adopted. Amendment 1, as amended,
was before the committee.
CHAIR STEVENS removed his objection.
SENATOR COSTELLO remarked that it was important that the
legislative branch maintain trust with the public and entities
with which the state conducts business. She said she viewed
Amendment 1, as amended, as an effort [by the legislature and
the state] to keep its word.
5:17:41 PM
CHAIR STEVENS found no objection and Amendment 1, as amended,
was adopted. He solicited a motion to move the bill.
5:18:11 PM
At ease.
5:18:36 PM
CHAIR STEVENS reconvened the meeting.
5:18:37 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved to report SB 64, work order 31-GS1091\A, as
amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note.
CHAIR STEVENS objected for purposes of discussion.
SENATOR BEGICH expressed a number of concerns about the bill. He
acknowledged that [SB 64, as amended] would meet one of the
state's obligations, which is to pay past debts. However, he
recalled that when the bill was presented, the administration
commented that voters knew risk was involved when voting for
school bond debt reimbursement. He argued that when voters do
not have lawyers [in the voting booth] to explain the fine
detail on measures before them. Instead, voters vote in good
faith on ballot measures.
SENATOR BEGICH said that he agreed with Senator Costello's
[remarks]. However, the actual bill, SB 64, would damage the
long-term future of the state in terms of eliminating a program
that is used to guarantee adequate facilities for students, he
said.
SENATOR BEGICH offered his belief that the bill has
constitutional problems. In 2010, a mechanism passed to
partially address the Kasayulie suit, which was finely crafted
as part of a consent decree. That mechanism ensured that the
main issue of the lawsuit was the arbitrary nature of how the
state funded schools. In fact, the court found the state was
arbitrary in its processes to fund schools. The mechanism [in AS
14.100] was designed to correct that inequality. It relied on an
understanding by municipalities that the amount of school bond
debt the state funded would be matched by an equivalent amount
for rural schools. The purpose of the equivalent funds was to
address existing needs and to compensate for the past inadequate
process the state used to build schools in Alaska.
He said that eliminating the Bond Debt Reimbursement Program
would invalidate that piece. One section of SB 64 indicates that
won't happen and that for a period of time deposits will
continue to be made to the rural education fund, he said.
However, no legislature cannot bind a future legislature. He
predicted that the net consequence of abolishing the program
under SB 64 would result in litigation.
SENATOR BEGICH characterized the 1999 court decision as pretty
dramatic. The state was required to change its arbitrary system
for school construction decisions. The court decision also
called for a reconstitution of the Public Schools Lands Trust.
In 1999, the estimate was $200 million to reconstitute that
trust. He said he could not imagine today's estimated costs. He
indicated he would be a "do not pass" on this bill because the
entire bill presents a substantial risk to the legislature and
the state. He reminded members a bill must have one "do pass" to
pass out of committee, so he encouraged members to consider the
long term consequences of their votes. Although he said he is
not opposed to strong and sensible fiscal solutions to the
state's issues, he expressed grave concern about constitutional
issues that passage of SB 64 could bring.
5:23:00 PM
CHAIR STEVENS related his understanding that the requirement for
a bill to receive one "do pass" means it must have one "do pass"
in the process, not necessarily from this committee.
SENATOR COSTELLO said that she recently reviewed the Uniform
Rules and it is possible for a bill to reach the floor without
any "do pass" votes through the process. A vote on the floor
would allow satisfy the requirement. She said the committee
addresses serious concerns and significant bills, which should
move through the process to allow committees to have a chance to
review them. She offered to provide the committee members with a
copy of the rule, if needed.
CHAIR STEVENS said his key point is that it does not need a "do
pass" to move out of the Senate Education Committee and happens
to the bill after that is up to the system. He asked whether
Senator Costello agreed with his interpretation.
SENATOR COSTELLO answered yes.
5:24:36 PM
SENATOR BIRCH said, "I don't like this bill. I don't like it at
all. I think it breaks with a constitutional obligation." He
recalled working on school issues during the mid-1980s,
following the Molly Hootch case. In that case, a young woman had
the courage to say that the state constitution requires the
State of Alaska to provide an educational program and system
that fulfilled those education requirements. He indicated that
what troubled him about this proposal was that it dumped a
significant financial burden on his constituents and others. For
example, the Mat-Su Borough has a $100 million liability [for
school construction debt.] Organized boroughs in the state are
burdened with school construction costs because these
communities have a structure for raising taxes, he said.
However, in communities slightly north of the Mat-Su, such as
Glennallen or Tok, or other areas outside of an unorganized
borough, the state has full responsibility and basically "writes
a check" for all aspects of education. The legislature wants to
spend responsibly, which he absolutely supports, he said.
However, problems exist with the division of authority between
local school districts and the state with respect to how
individual school districts are managed. For example, he did not
believe the districts had any control over contract terms and
labor costs.
SENATOR BIRCH said he is very troubled about [SB 64.]. He
referred to [the transmittal letter] from the governor and read,
"The program, while well-intentioned, has become unsustainable
and unnecessary." He offered his belief that these terms
"unsustainable and unnecessary" are not optional for schools
because the state has an underlying fiscal responsibility to
maintain the [state school construction debt reimbursement]
program. He offered that the amendment the committee adopted
[Amendment 1] was a step in the right direction, of course, but
he expressed concern that the bill was "pulling the rug out"
from his municipality and any organized borough in the state.
SENATOR HUGHES said the Constitution of the State of Alaska is
required to establish and maintain the K-12 system, which could
be interpreted to involve the actual facilities. She echoed some
of Senator Birch's concerns. She lamented that she was not
prepared to offer an amendment to extend the moratorium instead
of repealing the [school debt reimbursement' program]. She
related her understanding that it was not currently possible
[given the state's financial condition] to do so. She remarked
that the state and legislature are working to get the state's
fiscal house in order, including currently working to diversify
the economy.
She asked to correct an earlier statement she made in another
committee, that the state was building schools in her area at
the rate of one new school per year, which is actually one
school every three to four years. She pointed out the Joe
Reddington High School was built three years ago, and it already
has eight portables so the communities will soon need to build
another high school.
SENATOR HUGHES expressed concern [that passage of SB 64] meant
that one hundred percent of the burden would fall on the local
taxpayers in organization boroughs. Her constituents are
concerned about property tax increases, she said. Some residents
in some communities do not share the [school construction debt]
costs in the same way. She suggested that once the state gets
its fiscal house in order, the legislature should consider a
fair and more equitable system to provide capital construction
for schools statewide.
CHAIR STEVENS, based on his service as a borough mayor and
school board member, expressed concern about the effect SB 64
would have on communities.
5:29:44 PM
At ease.
5:29:49 PM
CHAIR STEVENS reconvened the meeting. He removed his objection
and there being no further objection, CSSB 64(EDC) was reported
from the Senate Education Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SEDC_ConfirmationHearing_PTPC_Reitan_15April2019_combined.pdf |
SEDC 4/15/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Confirmation Hearing - PTPC - Chris Reitan - April 15, 2019 |
| 15_SB064_DebtReimbursement_Amendment_A1.pdf |
SEDC 4/15/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| 16_SB064_DebtReimbursement_Amendment_A1_LegalMemo.pdf |
SEDC 4/15/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 64 |
| SB079_Ed Transformation Act_Bill Text_Version S.pdf |
SEDC 4/15/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 79 |
| SB079_Ed Transformation Act_Support_AK Digital Academy_11April2019.pdf |
SEDC 4/15/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 79 |
| SB079_EducationTransformation_Sectional_Version S_14April2019.pdf |
SEDC 4/15/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 79 |
| SB079_EducationTransformation_Explanation of Changes From Version U to S _14April2019.pdf |
SEDC 4/15/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 79 |