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 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.
| 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 |