Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/05/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB82 | |
| SJR9 | |
| SB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SJR 9 | ||
SENATE BILL NO. 82
"An Act providing for public school funding for
telecommunications or Internet services."
9:09:55 AM
Senator Olson stated that SB 82 was related to discounts on
broadband for schools and that it would have a positive
impact on schools throughout the State of Alaska.
DAVID SCOTT, STAFF, SENATOR DONALD OLSON, related that the
intent of the bill was to have the state pick up the local
share of the broadband that was not covered under the E-
Rate Program. He explained that the E-Rate Program was a
federal program that provided from the Universal Service
Fund (USF) a discount to schools, libraries, and "things of
that nature." He offered that every school district in the
state would benefit from the bill and referenced a spread
sheet from the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) in members' packets (copy on file). He
referenced page 5 of the spreadsheet and noted that $9.180
million was the total of the all the districts' applicant
shares. He observed that through the E-Rate Program and the
USF, the state was able to leverage roughly $4 for every $1
that it put in. He noted that the state was always
attempting to make the education system better and that the
sponsor felt that it was appropriate to assist school
districts by leveraging even more federal funding in order
to expand educational opportunities for districts that did
not have every opportunity; he stated that the legislation
would have the most benefit for rural school districts, but
that every school district would benefit from it. He
pointed out that there were only 2 sections in the bill. He
referenced Section 1, subsection (a), which dealt with the
applicant share. He stated that Section 1, subsection
(b)(1) reflected the cap for bandwidth and that, subsection
(b)(2) represented the floor. He related that the floor was
a minimum of 10 megabits per second of download and that
the fiscal note showed that there were roughly 500 schools
in Alaska; 170 of those schools were below the 10 megabit
floor.
Mr. Scott continued to address SB 82 and offered that the
increased broadband was necessary to assist in distance
delivery courses and new online assessments. He observed
that DEED estimated that it would cost $7.3 million to
bring the 170 schools up to the 10 megabit per second
floor. He relayed that the sponsor felt that the benefits
of technology and the internet would expand educational
opportunities for all students across the state.
9:14:37 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough understood that there had been a
broadband-bandwidth study conducted regarding potential
needs in different areas in Alaska, but that she had not
received it yet to the best of her knowledge. She inquired
how the proposed numbers in bill compared with the actual
usage and need of bandwidth within those communities
currently. She furthered inquired who the bandwidth would
be purchased from. She recalled discussions with the Alaska
Railroad Corporation (ARRC) and thought that there was a
company that had basically bought all of the broadband
bandwidth in all of the states; as a result, everyone had
to go through a particular entity to buy bandwidth. She
admitted that she was unsure if the situation of bandwidth
being bought up was true, but that she had heard that the
federal government sold the bandwidth to a particular
company, which would cost states and municipalities
additional money. Mr. Scott replied that the question was
one that drilled into the E-Rate Program and the USF; he
deferred the question to Ms. Thibodeau in the interest of
saving the committee time.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if the state had contributed to E-
Rate Program in the past. Mr. Scott responded that his
understanding was that the federal funds were dispersed to
the school districts and that the school districts
themselves picked up the applicant share. He furthered that
the intent of the bill was to have the state cover the
districts' applicant shares of internet services that were
not provided by the E-Rate Program, which the state had
never done before to his knowledge.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if the bill was a request that had
come from the school districts. Mr. Scott responded that
some school districts had approached the sponsor regarding
the legislation.
Senator Dunleavy inquired if the funds that would be
dedicated through the bill would be focused just on
internet service or if schools would be able to choose to
spend the money in other areas. Mr. Scott replied that the
E-Rate Program limited the uses of the funds to
telecommunications services, internet access, and internal
connections.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that with federal match, there was a
concern with the federal contribution going away and
inquired if the bill's sponsors had that concern. Mr. Scott
did not believe that it was a concern and stated that the
E-Rate Program was not subject to sequestration;
furthermore, the USF was paid into by everyone who had a
phone and received a bill and was also not subject to
sequestration. He noted that as Alaskans, however, it was
good to be skeptical.
9:19:49 AM
Senator Dunleavy directed the committee's attention to page
2 of the bill and inquired if the effective date was July
1, 2013. Mr. Scott replied that the bill had been drafted
the previous year and that if it passed, there would need
to be conforming changes in a committee substitute to the
effective date, as well as other areas of the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the committee would make the
changes if and when bill moved.
Vice-Chair Fairclough pointed to the sponsor statement for
the bill (copy and file), which discussed the bill's
minimum bandwidth floor. She inquired how the minimum floor
of megabits per second was driving the costs of providing
the broadband; she further inquired if the districts' costs
trickled down to the individual schools and if the
infrastructure cost was reflected in the bill. Mr. Scott
replied that way he understood the E-Rate Program, internet
connections were considered infrastructure. He related that
the state assumed that it would cost $7.3 million to get
those 170 schools up to 10 megabits per second. He directed
the committee's attention to Section 1, subsection (b)(1)
of the bill and relayed that eligible schools would meet
the floor and be limited by a cap, which was:
"10 percent of the amount paid under this section in
the immediately preceding fiscal year for Internet
services.."
Co-Chair Meyer thought that the bill had potential to
advance the distance delivery program, but that the
administration could address that issue further.
Senator Olson commented that the bill would not only help
the distance delivery program, but would also assist with
general internet within the individual schools. He
explained that he did not have all of the details worked
out regarding how the money would trickle down to different
schools, but that the bill would certainly be a help to all
of the school districts in Alaska regardless of whether
they were large or small, which was why he had sponsored
the legislation.
LINDA THIBODEAU, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES,
AND MUSEUMS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT,
related that Ms. Oliver was the division's E-Rate
specialist and would probably be deferred to for questions
on that issue.
9:25:17 AM
Senator Olson inquired if it was true that a company had
bought a major portion of the broadband width in America
and that Alaska would have go through that company to get
internet coverage for its schools.
VALERIE OLIVER, DIVISION OF LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES, AND
MUSEUMS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), responded that she was not
aware of that situation and that the reference may have
been made in regard to something else. She related that
Alaska had pretty robust competition among internet
providers. She explained that one provider did not fit all
needs in Alaska and that individual providers were better
suited for some areas, while some were better suited for
others. She concluded that there was no monopoly in Alaska
regarding internet service.
Ms. Thibodeau added that the E-rate program also required
that the lowest cost provider would be used.
Vice-Chair Fairclough requested that the previous speaker
and the speaker online identify themselves for the record .
Ms. Thibodeau stated that the E-Rate reimbursement program
required competition and that the lowest cost bandwidth be
selected for each location; additionally, she was also
unaware of any monopoly or any particular vendor that had
bought and owned all the bandwidth for Alaska.
Vice-Chair Fairclough recalled that her previous comments
had specifically stated that ARRC had supplied the
information regarding an internet monopoly during a
presentation on positive train control in an earlier
meeting. She did not know how broadband width sold
throughout the country, but believed that individual
carriers purchased it from somewhere. She wondered where
the individual carriers would purchase their broadband
bandwidth from and if there was a difference between
carriers for Alaska.
Ms. Thibodeau responded that she was unaware of the
situation ARRC had referenced and was unable to speak to
the issue; however, there were a lot of different "pots" of
E-Rate money and different pots of federal subsidies. She
explained that the federal E-Rate subsidies for schools and
libraries were different than the subsidies for health or
other entities. She concluded that the ARRC's business was
out of purview of the Division of Libraries, Archives, and
Museums.
Senator Bishop queried if DEED was confident in its
analysis that one-third of Alaska's schools were getting
under 10 megabits per second. Ms. Thibodeau deferred the
question to Ms. Oliver, but added that the information was
from the previous spring and could probably be updated. She
offered that bandwidth was a moving target and that schools
bought it depending on what they could afford and what it
was selling for at a particular time.
9:30:02 AM
Ms. Oliver replied that the information was slightly out of
date and explained that currently, school districts were
conducting procurement for the next year for the purposes
of E-Rate; some districts were currently looking for
contracts for bandwidth growth. She noted that as the
demand for online testing became higher, districts were
actively procuring for increased bandwidth. She believed
that the percent of schools that were under 10 megabits per
second would be dropping rather than rising; additionally,
procurements were in the contract stage currently and there
would more information regarding the contracts by the end
of March. She concluded that contracts that schools were
currently signing were for services that would connect on
July 1, 2014.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that Co-Chair Kelly had joined the
committee in progress.
Senator Hoffman directed the committee's attention to a
document in members' packets titled "E-Rate Share and Total
Cost" (copy on file) and inquired what the percentage under
the "Discount E-rate Request" column meant. He noted that
the percentage varied between school districts from 48
percent up to 90 percent. Ms. Oliver replied that each
district was awarded a discount on its internet services
that depended on the poverty level in its local community.
She explained that the E-Rate Program had a discount matrix
that the percent was drawn from. She concluded that the
discount level truly reflected the economic situations in
particular school districts and communities.
9:32:57 AM
Senator Hoffman queried what the implications of having the
floor at 10 megabits per second would be in the future when
the speeds might increase rapidly. He wondered if the
program would go away if everyone was at 50 megabits per
second in the future. Ms. Oliver understood that the fiscal
note would cover districts' share of the bandwidth costs
regardless of the where they were; furthermore, the bill
would not only elevate the districts that were under 10
megabits, but would also cover the non-discounted share for
the districts like Anchorage or the Lower Kuskokwim, which
were approaching 100 megabits per second. She concluded
that the non-discounted share would grow as bandwidth
subscription increased and that she did not see the program
going away because districts would always have a portion
that they would be required to pay under the Federal
Communications Commission's statutes.
9:34:32 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if Ms. Oliver had stated
that the local community would always be required to pay
its share. Ms. Oliver responded in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Fairclough surmised that the legislation was
asking the state to pick up the local share and inquired if
that was correct. Ms. Oliver responded different states did
things differently and that some states did pay the non-
discounted share but some did not. She reported that a lot
of states had a network where the broadband was brought
down to the school site, which was completely covered by
the state. She stated that the way she read the bill, it
appeared as though the districts were asking the state to
pay its non-discounted portion.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if there was a State of
Alaska broadband width study. Ms. Thibodeau replied that
that she was unable to answer the question and believed
that Vice-Chair Fairclough was referencing the governor's
broadband taskforce. She added that the Division of
Libraries, Archives, and Museums had not been involved with
the taskforce.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired how the fiscal note's
numbers were arrived at and if the previous year's actual
numbers were used in the calculations. Ms. Thibodeau
replied that she and Ms. Oliver had worked on the fiscal
note with the vendors and the school districts the prior
spring to find costs; at the time, the school districts had
been involved in bidding for the current year. She
explained that the fiscal note was lagging a bit behind,
but that the process had been to get the best estimates;
those estimates were divided with one-third of schools
needing upgrades to 10 megabits and two-thirds needing a 10
percent increase.
Vice-Chair Fairclough pointed out that the bill built in a
10 percent cost increase that vendors could negotiate
because the state would pick it up. She offered that the
legislation proposed to deposit or transfer the
responsibility of paying internet services. She referenced
a document titled "Erate Brief" (copy on file) and noted
that it provided examples of eligible services; she was not
opposed to the types of eligible services, but noted that
the bill proposed to supplant state funds for funds coming
in from elsewhere. She acknowledged that she was unsure if
the money that the bill proposed using would simply consist
of state funding that was shifted from one pool to another;
however, the legislation did have a built in increase that
vendors could use against the districts to perpetuate cost
increases and not really negotiate well. She appreciated
the bill being brought forward and was supportive of
providing better internet access; however, she wanted more
information about the financial implications of the fiscal
note, as well as how the cost figures were arrived at. She
also wanted to look at the governor's broadband study to
see if the bill's formula would achieve the effect that the
state desired.
9:39:31 AM
Senator Olson noted that the internet was the wave of the
future and would be a very important factor for posterity.
He stated that the bill started the discussion of how the
state could provide not only for the school districts that
were struggling to provide internet, but also for the
districts in the metropolitan areas. He stated that another
option would be to have the state and school districts
split the costs in half instead of having the state pay for
the full $22 million in FY16. He concluded that there were
other options to make the bill affordable, but that his
goal was to make costs affordable for school districts and
have the bill benefit students.
Co-Chair Meyer offered that the discussion on the bill was
good. He relayed that he wanted to hear more from the
administration regarding a possible broadband study and how
the bill fit into the overall objective of getting more
distance learning into education.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that there was a concept of
driving down administrative costs by centralizing
insurance. She wondered if the state had buying power to
take the expense directly off of the school districts'
plates or if there was a benefit to having a local entity
negotiating with multiple carriers to keep competition
going. She wondered if there was a way to negotiate better
terms by moving with access differently.
Senator Bishop requested a list of the one-third of the
districts that were under 10 megabits per second. Ms.
Thibodeau responded that she believed that DEED had that
information and asked Ms. Oliver if that was correct.
Ms. Oliver replied that while DEED did not have the
information for July 1, 2014 and going forward, it did have
the current information. In other words, the department did
not know what the districts were currently negotiating
contracts for, but it did know about the current contracts.
Ms. Oliver stated for the record that she was a resource if
the committee wanted more information.
9:44:19 AM
LUKE FULT, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF BUSINESS AND
OPERATIONS, MAT-SU BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAT-SU (via
teleconference), testified in support of SB 82. He related
that the district invested heavily in technology to ensure
that its schools were well connected; furthermore, the
district provided online courses, tutorials, and lessons
that served to enrich activities that took place within the
traditional classroom setting. He stated that digital
learning was an important part of the Mat-Su Borough School
District's curriculum and pointed out that the district had
partnered with service providers to increase bandwidth
connectivity across its area-wide network. He pointed out
that increased infrastructure made the district's schools
more connected than ever before; however, with the
increased connectivity came higher costs. He reported that
in the next school year, the Mat-Su Borough School District
planned to contribute $600,000 for the local portion of E-
Rate-eligible services.
MARY SAGE, BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT, BARROW (via teleconference), testified in
support of SB 82. She related that the E-Rate Program
currently paid for 60 to 90 percent of all internet
services in public schools. She stated that the legislation
would provide approximately $13.8 million in FY14 for
school districts to offset the local costs of internet
services. She pointed out that one-third of public schools
had less than 10 megabits per second of internet services.
She added that 10 megabits was a pretty low bar to set. She
stated that the bill would allow schools that were below 10
megabits per second to come up to that minimum level and
receive state reimbursement. She noted that the Alaska
Legislature and its staff had over 100 megabits per second
available to them in the legislative session.
PEGGY COWAN, SUPERINTENDENT, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BARROW (via teleconference), spoke in support of
SB 82. She reported that the bill had 2 aspects to it; one
was to bring schools to a minimum bandwidth of 10 megabits
per second. The other aspect of the bill was to cap the
state's exposure to a 10 percent increase over the prior
year for internet services increases. She pointed out that
other states provided some utilities and services free of
charge to schools. She observed that the bill would have
the state share some of the support with the federal
government and thought that increasing broadband would
assist schools with distance delivered courses and
anticipated state online assessments. She stated that with
its current situation, the North Slope Borough School
District would not be able to do an online assessment
program. She stated that the E-Rate Program was not subject
to sequestration and noted that there had been discussion
about adding money to the USF because of things like online
assessments that were being developed at the federal level.
She stated that the school district was currently in the
process of taking and evaluating bids for its phone and
internet services and noted that 4 different vendors had
been used in the past; in this particular bid process, the
district was looking at 2 bid packages. She thought that
the legislation was critical for rural school districts and
to the 170 schools that had internet below 10 megabits per
second; however, it would also be an asset to urban school
districts.
9:53:07 AM
ROBERT THOMASON, SUPERINTENDENT, PETERSBURG SCHOOL
DISTRICT, PETERSBURG (via teleconference), testified in
support of SB 82. He noted that the Petersburg School
District was recognized as a state leader in digital
learning and the application of technology, and observed
that it was very fortunate to have 25 megabits per second;
the cost of that bandwidth was about $6,350 per month, 77
percent of which was currently reimbursed by the E-Rate
Program.
JON PAINTER, DIRECTOR, INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY, PETERSBURG
SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETERSBURG (via teleconference), expressed
support for SB 82. He related that as technology went
forward, there became more need for technology support. He
discussed innovations in technology such as 3D printing and
teleconferencing with other educators around the world. He
stated that modern teaching methods that utilized digital
tools were revolutionizing education and that technology
was a great equalizer in society. He thought that
delivering faster and more robust internet connection had
implications on students' learning and offered that
connectivity in Rural Alaska had a direct impact on
learning outcomes; furthermore, the education system and
the nation's ability to prepare students were important in
the highly global workforce.
THERESA KEEL, SUPERINTENDENT, CORDOVA SCHOOL DISTRICT,
CORDOVA (via teleconference), testified in support of SB
82. She related the Cordova School District was a model for
the use of technology in education and that every student
in it had daily access to an internet device such as an
IPad or laptop computer; from grades 7-12, the district's
students had a 24-hour laptop that they used all year long.
She reported that not all districts in Alaska were as
fortunate as Cordova and offered that technology was the
great equalizer for children in Rural Alaska. She thought
that the ability to provide online content in courses
enabled kids to achieve the Alaska Performance
Scholarships, allowed students to take duel-credit courses,
and offered diversity in course and content opportunities;
furthermore, rural districts could not provide all of this
due to staffing and broadband limitations. She pointed out
that the cost of broadband was becoming more and more
difficult to deal with as funding remained flat. She
thought that providing a minimum of 10 megabits per second
of bandwidth for every district would take a significant
financial burden off of school districts and would give
every district the ability to provide more courses for
content. She stated that the prior year, Cordova School
district had spent over $14,000 for its local share of the
E-Rate Program for 6 megabits of broadband. She added that
the cost for the district in the current year would be over
$20,000 for 10 megabits per second of bandwidth. She
concluded that the bill would provide the biggest bang for
the state's buck regarding funding education outside of the
formula and stated that it would provide more opportunities
for success in Rural Alaska.
9:59:41 AM
Senator Olson wondered if the bill would be outdated in 5
or 10 years with the advance of technology. Ms. Keel
replied that through the E-Rate bid process, the Cordova
School District had the opportunity to contract with a
provider for 2, 3, or 5 years; the district had chosen to
go with a 2-year contract because of the uncertainty of
where the cost of bandwidth was going. She added that the
district believed that the cost of bandwidth would fall as
competition increased. She reported that 5 years prior,
when the district had conducted its E-Rate contract, only 1
out of 2 the vendors that had went through the bid process
had been affordable; however, in the current year, there
were 3 different vendors with very competitive bids vying
to provide services for Cordova. She concluded thought that
the cost would be going down, but that it was currently
very hard for school districts to provide the amount of
bandwidth necessary to keep up with the age of technology.
10:02:07 AM
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
10:02:19 AM
AT EASE
10:04:58 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Meyer noted that there had been some specific
questions for the administration and how the bill fit into
the broadband study that was being conducted.
10:06:11 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that the committee was trying
to get in contact with different broadband carriers
throughout Alaska to see where broadband was being
purchased from. She wondered if the task force broadband
study had been distributed to the legislators and requested
that someone come by her office to discuss the study. She
wanted to see what information the administration had on
the issue.
LES MORSE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, replied that the broad band task force
had worked out of the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED), but noted that he would be
happy to contact the department regarding Vice-Chair
Fairclough's interest. He understood that DCCED had
finalized its report earlier in the month, but was unsure
if it had been distributed yet.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that the commissioner of DEED
had indicated the prior summer in a Senate Finance
Subcommittee that there was a broadband study. She thought
that DEED had been working on a needs assessment of the
districts. Mr. Morse noted that he better understood the
question and reported that there was another effort being
looked at by DEED; it was not being conducted by a
taskforce, but was a technology readiness survey. He
reported that DEED was still in the midst of conducting the
technology readiness survey and that it was primarily
looking at if schools had the technology and tools to do an
electronic assessment; the survey had a limitation and did
not really speak to broadband. He explained that the survey
looked at if the equipment a school had could facilitate
testing regardless of whether it would be using an internet
connection. He explained that there was a system called
local caching, which used a local server for testing; this
made it so you did not have to rely on broadband. He
explained that DEED was looking at local caching as a
solution because broadband was not currently available
everywhere. He stated that he would make the preliminary
information available to Vice-Chair Fairclough and that he
would provide the finalized report to the full committee.
Vice-Chair Fairclough believed that she had specifically
asked about a broadband study and not a survey. She
recalled that the Senate Finance Subcommittee had been
trying to determine how the state would deliver educational
opportunities to Rural Alaska, as well as anywhere else
that did not have a highly qualified instructor in a
particular area.
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that the E-Rate discount that
subsidized the internet connectivity was distributed based
on the poverty rate and inquired if that system would be
equitable in Alaska for reaching need. She wondered if the
system targeted enough or too much money for Anchorage
based on the poverty level guidelines and further inquired
if the criteria for the distribution of funds would meet
the needs of excess or lacking broadband in smaller
communities. Mr. Morse responded that he could only speak
to the distribution and that under that definition it was
distributed in a fair process. He offered that it was a
policy discussion of whether the system met the need or
not.
10:11:56 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that she wanted to wait till
the committee had a broadband study, so that it could know
what actual resources were needed in the different
communities. She supported the idea of the bill and getting
resources to schools that were trying to provide internet.
She noted that there college campuses in Alaska. She
wondered whether the state would stand up individual
locations for purchasing power or if it would look at a
community as a whole and look at its need. She wondered if
it would be best to let the school districts negotiate if
the state was going to take on the investment.
Senator Dunleavy understood that there was a task force
that looked at broadband, but that study was not
necessarily comprehensive. He applauded Senator Olson for
the legislation, but wanted to make sure that the committee
was not constantly adding pieces to a system that it did
not have enough information on. He thought that broadband
or technological capabilities and or issues statewide
needed to be ascertained and that a plan to possibly
address those needed to be developed.
Co-Chair Meyer did not recall the name of the governor's
program that had been discussed in the State of the State
speech and inquired how the bill was related to the
governor's proposed program. Mr. Morse replied that the
governor had spoken to a Digital Teaching Initiative and
reported that the initiative would start with a pilot
program for a limited number of years on 3 locations where
there would be some opportunity to use distance technology.
The idea was to work with 3 districts the first year,
examine success, and expand the number to 5 districts
during the pilot phase. He reported that the other piece of
the plan was supporting instructors because instruction via
distance was different in terms of what a teacher needed to
do to be prepared. He concluded that there would be greater
details regarding the governor's plan as the capital budget
was rolled out in hearings.
10:15:44 AM
Co-Chair Meyer wanted to figure out if there was common
ground between the bill and the governor's proposed program
in the capital budget.
Senator Olson inquired if the administration was in favor
of the bill as it was written. Ms. Morse responded that the
administration thought it was an important dialogue and
that all of the discussion around broadband had a lot of
points to it. He noted that there had been a task force
that looked specifically at broadband and thought that it
should probably be added to the discussion. He thought that
the issue around creating opportunity and connectedness for
families was important. He thought that whether the bill
should move forward was an important policy conversation
that the legislature should have.
Senator Olson inquired when the committee could expect
advice regarding the administration's desired changes in
the bill, including the fiscal note. Mr. Morse stated that
in terms of the fiscal note, the administration had
provided necessary information. He was unsure if DEED had
any other advice regarding the fiscal note. He added that
the administration's perspective of the bill was that it
represented an important policy discussion that the
legislature needed to have. He concluded that
administration would take a position on the bill as it
moved along if it were passed, but reiterated that it was
important dialogue and policy decision of the legislature.
Co-Chair Kelly agreed that the legislation did represent an
important policy discussion and thanked Senator Olson for
offering the bill. He thought that the legislature tended
to incorporate "these kinds of subjects" in its day-to-day
talking points. He noted that the legislature believed in
broadband for Rural Alaska, as well as digital learning to
equalize education opportunities; however, when these
issues came to the legislature, they woke people up because
of their high expense. He thought that the conversation was
necessary because ultimately, it needed to be done. He was
unsure if the bill was exact vehicle, but thought that
legislators had all stated that digital learning needed to
be made available for Rural Alaska. He stated that he
wanted to meet with some people to discuss the issue.
10:18:45 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that currently, the local school
districts were picking up the cost and that bill would
shift the cost to the state. He inquired if there were
synergies involved with having the funding come through the
state. Mr. Morse deferred the question to staff at DEED,
but indicated that there may be some advantages of having
the state negotiate; however, there were also unknowns in
terms of the fiscal impact of having the state funding the
local share of E-Rate Program. He added that DEED may be
able to provide some more specifics on the issue.
10:19:55 AM
AT EASE
10:22:48 AM
RECONVENED
10:22:59 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that Vice-Chair Fairclough had brought
up some good questions and that a lot of them could not be
answered in the current meeting. He observed that there
were a lot of unknowns with the bill and wanted to form a
subcommittee on the legislation to get more details
regarding the nuts and bolts of the bill and how it, or
something similar, could work. He noted that Senator Olson
would chair the subcommittee and that Senator Dunleavy and
Vice-Chair Fairclough would be members. He hoped that the
legislation could be brought back before the full committee
within approximately 30 days.
10:24:11 AM
SB 82 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:24:21 AM
AT EASE
10:25:48 AM
RECONVENED