Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/31/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB393 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 393 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 2010
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Vice Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 393
"An Act relating to charter school approval and
funding."
- MOVED CSHB 393(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 206
"An Act establishing a career assessment requirement
in public schools; and relating to postsecondary
courses for secondary school students."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 393
SHORT TITLE: CHARTER/ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL FUNDING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/23/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/10 (H) EDC, FIN
03/12/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/12/10 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/15/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/24/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/24/10 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/29/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/29/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/10 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/31/10 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SAM KITO, III, Architect
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 393.
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the
discussion of HB 393.
LORETTA NARDI, President
Partnership for Alaska Charter Schools, Inc.
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 393.
JOHN WEETMAN, Assistant Superintendent of
Administration
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 393.
BARBARA GERARD, Administrator
Academy Charter School
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 393.
EDDY JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the
hearing on HB 393.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:06:23 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Education Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:06 a.m.
Representatives Seaton, Munoz, Peggy Wilson, Edgmon,
Keller, and Buch were present at the call to order.
Representative Gardner arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 393-CHARTER/ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL FUNDING
8:06:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 393, "An Act relating
to charter school approval and funding."
[Before the committee was HB 393, identified as 26-
LS1550\A.2.]
CHAIR SEATON reviewed the recent additions to the
committee packet germane to HB 393.
8:08:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reintroduced HB 393, relating
that the bill was requested by the Alaska Charter
School Association as a means to enable charter
schools to qualify for federal grants. An amendment
has been drafted to address the concern that the bill
stipulated that the school district would provide a
participating share equal to the difference between
the federal and state funding. The drafted amendment
would remove "for approved projects" and refers to the
specific statute, AS 14.11.020.
8:11:43 AM
SAM KITO, III, Architect, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), directed attention to charter
school information provided by the department to
address questions raised at the previous hearing.
8:14:58 AM
MR. KITO referred to a document titled "State of
Alaska, Department of Education and Early Development,
Active and closed Charter Schools." The document
listed charter schools currently in operation in the
state, as well as charter schools that were closed or
never opened. In response to Chair Seaton, he stated
that the schools may have been authorized or may never
have been opened.
8:16:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, referring to the document,
said that in 2002, the New Beginnings Charter School
closed, but the opening date is not shown.
Additionally, in 2004 the Horizon Charter School in
Mat-Su closed. She asked for the opening dates of the
two schools.
MR. KITO explained that the table was compiled by
staff using a variety of sources and that information
was unavailable.
CHAIR SEATON thanked the department for compiling the
list since it provides a broader perspective for the
committee.
8:17:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recalled the superintendent has
the authority to authorize leased charter school
facilities. He asked whether school districts are
paying to upgrade leased facilities in addition to the
cost of the lease.
8:17:59 AM
MR. KITO answered that charter schools pay leases from
their operating budgets. He was unsure of the
specifics for each charter school, but the EED
facilities program does not provide funding for a
leased facility. Thus, if a school district is
providing any funding to upgrade a facility for
student occupancy, presumably the funding would be
paid for from their operating budgets, or would be a
condition of the lease.
CHAIR SEATON observed that local school districts
either own or lease a charter school facility, but it
falls under the local school district's responsibility
to provide a facility for charter schools that are
authorized within the district.
MR. KITO agreed.
8:19:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the U. S. Department
of Education Guidance document titled, "The State
Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants Program"
and asked for a description of the program.
MR. KITO informed the committee that the program was
authorized in 2001 by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
legislation, and was reauthorized in 2004. He related
that California and Indiana received grants. The
program was reauthorized again with the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
Although not currently funded by Congress, federal
regulations allow for four charter school grants in
the amount of up to $10 million per state.
8:20:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether federal startup
funds for charter schools are still available.
MR. KITO said he was not familiar with that program.
He returned to the facilities program and noted that
the regulatory process for application is in place,
but Alaska does not meet the standard to score well in
the competitive process. If funding becomes
available, states would apply, and the applications
would be scored and prioritized by federal reviewers.
When approved, the programs would receive federal
funds through the state for start-up or the
enhancement of school facilities, thus helping the
state "step into" a fully functional facilities
charter school funding program. The intent of the
program is that the federal government would
participate at a high level in the first year, but
federal participation would decrease over time until
the state's program is fully functioning or
functioning better than it was before the federal
program was involved.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the decreasing percentage
of federal funds is for the facility, or for the four
schools authorized for the statewide program.
MR. KITO clarified that there were four grants
available under federal regulation for this
authorization, but there is no funding provided. He
stated his understanding that each grant would be a
grant to the state for its program, and the funding
mechanism "stair-steps" but is not tied to a specific
project, but is tied to the overall state's program
for charter school facilities.
8:23:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON commented that funding for charter school
facilities is necessarily separate from the way in
which schools are funded via municipal bonds and other
funding means. He related his understanding that the
program is separate, even though charter schools are
public schools in Alaska.
MR. KITO explained that according to the guidance it
does not necessarily need to be a separate program,
but charter school funding for facilities needs to be
based on a metric that uses a per-pupil calculation.
So, if the state had a way of funding charter school
facilities, but it was not separate from the existing
program, that funding could be used for scoring.
Currently, the state does not have the program so
establishing a separate program is one way of
achieving this. However, the program does not need to
be a "stand alone" program, separate from the existing
state facilities program.
8:25:13 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the committee was familiar
with the stair-step program and the federal
government's role.
8:26:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said his understanding is that
bill tried to model federal stair-step grant
administration language used in existing law. He
deferred to the drafter of the bill.
8:27:12 AM
JEAN MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, introduced herself.
CHAIR SEATON referred to page 2, line 2, which was the
"stair stepping mechanism."
MS. MISCHEL expressed her understanding that the ARRA
provides incentives in five-year increments and the
bill anticipates that the federal portion would be 90
percent of allowable costs of the project. The lead-
in language on page 2, lines 2-3, requires the
department to apply for available federal funding and
award federal funding. She pointed out that this
language relates to federal dollars; in fact, the
state portion is the dollar per pupil amount, plus
there would be a local contribution to make up the
difference. If the federal program is not funded
until fiscal year 2013 (FY 13), then there is no
obligation for the state to apply. She explained
there are other ways to access these funds; for
example, the state can decide that it wants school
districts to apply directly for funding. However, she
advised that would be burdensome for small school
districts.
8:29:55 AM
CHAIR SEATON provided a scenario in which there are
four projects totaling $10 million. He asked whether
the language of the bill anticipates that only the
money expended in the first year would be at 90
percent federal reimbursement, and if the projects
were not completed until the third year, that amount
would be reduced to 60 percent federal reimbursement.
The 40 percent remaining would be a liability to the
local municipality or school district.
8:31:06 AM
MS. MISCHEL indicated that would be an accurate
interpretation; furthermore, the department could
explain how they currently allocate grant funding for
facilities, which is under a six-year plan. She
thought the key term in the bill was "allowable cost."
Other than the adjustment for a student count, the
term is defined by the department in regulation.
8:32:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the document found
in the committee packet titled Legal Services
Memorandum, dated 3/30/10, and read [original
punctuation provided]:
The last sentence of Art. II, sec. 19 of the
Alaska Constitution prohibits "local acts"
that necessitate appropriations by a
political subdivision without a majority
vote of qualified voters. I know of no case
interpretation of this provision but the
bill's local contribution requirement could
certainly be put to a vote. Nothing in the
bill otherwise circumvents or "violates"
bonding requirements or even specifies
whether bonding may or may not be used as
for state aid under AS 14.11.100 even if the
district is a municipal school district.
CHAIR SEATON asked for legal counsel's interpretation
of this language.
MS. MISCHEL explained the general question was whether
the bill allows for a local contribution without a
vote, and if it would violate a bonding mandate or any
other law. The answer is that this bill does not
specify how the local contribution is generated. She
did not know if Art. II, sec. 19, of the Alaska
Constitution would be implicated because she was not
certain if a decision by a school board would be
construed as a local act, and would require a majority
vote. She stated that would be the conservative
approach. Realistically, both bonding and a vote for
local contribution are limited to municipal school
districts. Thus, the bonding requirement and vote
requirement are limited to municipal school districts
that can generate that type of local contribution.
With regard to regional educational attendance areas
(REAAs), there is no presupposition in the bill on how
the funds may be generated. However, under the
existing grant program, AS 14.11.008, federal impact
aid is used, which she thought could be used in this
instance, too.
8:35:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON questioned the legality of obligating a
substantial local contribution to be matched with
state and federal funding, without a vote of the
people.
MS. MISCHEL said she did not know. She suggested that
the governing body seek the advice of their municipal
counsel, but advised that the conservative approach
would be to take a vote.
8:36:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that the choice to
incur debt is the school district's responsibility.
He stated that he did not want to lead school
districts to "doing something they shouldn't do," but
he thought it was something "they deal with all the
time." He surmised the stair-step approach of 90-80-
60 percent is to allow for a response to the stimulus
money; however, the stimulus money is not going to be
available. He then asked whether the stair-step
percentage language should be removed since legal
counsel advised that "allowable cost" has to be
defined by regulation. He suggested that "for
approved projects" on page 2, line 4, could be changed
to "for allowable costs."
MS. MISCHEL said the percentages probably do not need
to be specified, but the suggested change may make
implementation difficult because it would be hard to
tell from the legislation what level of commitment the
state and local entities would be making when applying
for the grants. There was not a lot of detail
included in the bill regarding eligibility, or other
potential federal requirements, because they seem to
be "a moving target" at this time. She suggested that
the state could refer in the bill to a federal funding
formula in a general way, but she cautioned against
leaving it blank.
8:39:21 AM
MR. KITO offered to describe how the existing program
works.
8:39:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether he would be
describing the current grant program or the charter
school program.
MR. KITO replied that he would describe the existing
grant program for all school facilities. The
applications are received once per year, reviewed,
scored, and prioritized. The projects appear before
the legislature and funds are appropriated by the
legislature. The EED administers the program on an
annual basis thus, in a given year, the department
receives a certain amount of funding for specific
projects. When he reviewed HB 393, he identified an
estimate of a "flat funding amount." Therefore, the
state of Alaska would have an established facilities
funding program for charter schools-the "$1 program"-
that could provide an estimated amount of $10-$20
million per year. Beginning with a flat amount of
money per year, the funds would be spent on approved
projects. He related his understanding that in a
program in which $10 million per year was
appropriated, the federal government would pay 90
percent in the first year, with the state paying the
"per-pupil" allocation, and the school district making
up the balance. That funding level would remain
constant, but the federal participation would decline
as the program moved forward.
8:42:25 AM
MR. KITO, in response to Chair Seaton, related that in
the third year, the federal reimbursement amount would
be at about 40 percent of the total program, or $4
million of $10 million. Furthermore, the state share
would be $1 per student, and the local share the
balance remaining.
CHAIR SEATON said, "So I think the lesson there is,
get in first."
8:43:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked at what stage a project
must be before it is presented to the department by
the school district.
MR. KITO answered that for the EED's standard program,
the project can be in any stage, from pre-planning to
design development drawings. As the regular program
is highly competitive, scoring is higher for a project
that has already completed advance work. He could not
anticipate how many applications the EED might receive
for the charter school program, but he did not think
the department would need to see as much advance work.
He thought that the school district might come in
during the planning stage to try to gain some support.
8:44:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether school
districts without a good tax base, and that could not
afford to complete advance work, ever "rank near the
top."
MR. KITO assured the committee that several REAA
districts are able to perform advance work and score
well. He stated that the amount of work is only one
part of the metric, and projects with other important
factors can still "move up the list" because the list
is "fairly well distributed" and is based on several
criteria. In further response to Representative P.
Wilson, he opined all schools have an opportunity to
qualify. With respect to charter school programs, he
added that many of the charter schools are located in
areas with a larger tax base and the ability to
prepare advance work. However, the charter school
facilities program may not be as competitive as the
regular program due to the lower number of
applications.
8:46:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the state is
required to have stair-step federal funding, or if
Alaska could receive "one time" federal funding and
then decide how and when to allocate the funding
within the state.
MR. KITO agreed with legal counsel that the actual
stair-step percentage does not need to be in the bill,
but the federal program is defined that way. Thus, if
the state applies for the federal grant and is awarded
the grant, the grant would be administered under those
terms for the charter school facility program.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ surmised the state does not need
to allocate the funds over five years, but could fund
a project in the full amount.
MR. KITO clarified that he assumed that the program
would be at a certain level with federal funds
decreasing over time. He said he considered that the
program would be an overall program grant.
8:48:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON presented a scenario in which the federal
government granted $100 million per year, to a state.
The first year the program would require a 10 percent
state or local match; the second year the program
would require a 20 percent match; the third year the
program would require a 40 percent match. He asked
whether that is the method in which the grants are
administered, with the commitment from state and local
funding of $100 million for five years.
MR. KITO said, "My understanding actually is that the
federal government program is a five-year program, but
they're assisting the state in developing the state's
permanent facilities funding program."
8:49:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that the current
state process to build a facility is a six-year plan.
She asked for clarification of the process year-by-
year.
MR. KITO answered that the existing program funds
projects on a per-project basis. He described a
scenario in which ten charter school facilities
projects were anticipated each year. Assuming each
project cost is the same, eight projects would be
funded by the federal government and two would be
funded by the state in the first year, and then the
federal funding would stair-step down. The first year
the state would obligate all of the funding for the
approved projects; the next year the state would fund
the next group of projects, rather than fund a portion
of a project per year. Thus, each project would be
fully funded in the year that it was approved by EED.
8:52:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON reiterated his understanding of how the
funding would be distributed to the state. In his
scenario, the federal government would approach the
state to fund a permanent program at $50 million per
year, and the federal government would cover 90
percent of the cost in the first year, and 80 percent
in the next year, and 20 percent in the fifth year.
The state would be expected to continue this permanent
program at the $50 million per year level with local
participation. Therefore, the federal funding would
use a stair-step process, the state would cover $1 per
student, and municipalities would cover the remaining
costs.
MR. KITO concurred.
8:53:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned how long the state
would promise to continue the program.
MR. KITO answered that the intent of the federal
stair-step funding was to help establish the program
for facilities funding for charter schools, but
whether the state decided to continue with the program
after the federal participation would be at the
state's discretion. The federal government cannot
require continuation.
8:54:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concluded that approximately
50 percent of the charter schools failed or never
opened. She asked what would happen to the funds when
schools fail.
MR. KITO said his experience is that if the program
builds a facility for a school district that serves
charter school students and the facility is no longer
needed for that purpose, the school district would be
required to keep the facility open for public use for
a certain period of time.
8:57:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER made a motion to adopt HB 393
(Amended) labeled 26-LS1550\A.2. [The document
labeled House Bill No. 393 (Amended), 26-LS1550\A.2,
was the working document with Amendment 1 incorporated
therein.]
CHAIR SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
He reiterated that Version A.2 of the bill includes
the language contained in proposed Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER observed that the heart of the
change is on page 2, line 5, which adds the language,
"projects for which an assumption of responsibilities
has been made under AS 14.11.020." The additional
language addresses the concerns about whether this
funding is appropriate. Furthermore, removing
"approved project" clarifies that the approval is on
the basis of AS 14.11.020, and indicates the project
has gone through the process and is under the
jurisdiction of the local school district.
9:00:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to page 2, line 21,
and said she did not understand the distinction.
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the document in the
committee packet titled, "Sec 14.11.020 Assumption of
responsibilities." He explained this is current
statute that outlines the assumption for
responsibilities by a municipality or REAA, and
specifies "who's going to own these facilities, who's
going to approve the facilities, who's going to come
forward and be the 10 or 80 percent responsible for
matching...." He then referred to page 2, line 21, of
Version A.2, noting "approved for funding by the
department" was deleted, and asked if this was the
major maintenance grant program. He further asked if
that meant each project would apply for grant funding
individually, instead of establishing a state program.
MR. KITO said he did not have much time to review the
language, but he offered that the reference to
assuming responsibilities under AS 14.11.020 "gets to
the question of whether or not there's local approval
of a project." He was unsure of the effect of
removing "approved." He then gave a scenario in which
three projects at $2 million each were submitted and
said he was not certain under the amended language
whether EED could prioritize which project would
receive assistance.
9:02:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON expressed his understanding that the
purpose of the federal grant is to create a state
program for building facilities; thus, removing
"approved for funding by the department" language
would eliminate the program and provide only for a
separate project.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related that it was not the
intent of the bill to eliminate the decision by the
department on the disbursal of funds, but to clarify
that a local entity was responsible for the project.
9:04:48 AM
MS. MISCHEL agreed that page 2, line 21, should
continue "approved for funding and assumed under AS
14.11.020." She reiterated that the program itself is
not well spelled out in this legislation and advised
that the application process should not be eliminated.
There is an option for school districts to go directly
to the federal government to apply, although to keep
EED as the gatekeeper of the program, there would need
to be some sort of approval mechanism. She
recommended a conceptual amendment.
9:06:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, which would delete the language on page
2, line 8, and wherever appropriate throughout the
amendment.
CHAIR SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion.
He opined the result of Conceptual Amendment 1 would
be to make the program "just like the major
maintenance kind of program."
9:07:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated his agreement.
9:07:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised that although
districts can go directly to the federal government to
apply for these grants, Conceptual Amendment 1 ensures
the EED will serve as a gatekeeper to prioritize the
applications.
MR. KITO advised that school districts cannot apply
directly for this block of funding.
9:08:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER concluded that Conceptual
Amendment 1 gives the [department] authority to
prioritize applications.
MR. KITO indicated that if the department received
more applications than it has money to fund, it would
be able to prioritize the applications.
9:09:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that instead of
having one list of schools to be built, there would be
two lists.
MR. KITO clarified that there would be a separate list
for charter schools. In further response to
Representative P. Wilson, he acknowledged that the
selection process is a difficult one. For the regular
program, the department follows its regulation
process, but when the state builds a school for a very
small number of students, an extra level of scrutiny
determines the stability of the student population for
small schools. He anticipated that the charter school
facility program would have assurances from the school
district and the charter school that they are aware of
their local obligations for the operation of the
school, prior to the approval of the project.
9:11:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was
adopted.
9:12:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON confirmed that Amendment 1, as amended,
identified as 26-LS1550\A.2, was before the committee,
and removed his objection.
9:13:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for the purpose of
discussion. She then asked whether the local
assumption of responsibility in the proposed
legislation was the same as for the major maintenance
list.
MR. KITO affirmed that an existing part of the statute
allows school districts to assume responsibility for
school construction and major maintenance projects.
In further response to Representative Munoz, he said
his understanding is that there is not a statewide
appeal process for the authorization of a charter
school facility that does not have the support of the
local school district.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ clarified that her question
concerns an approved charter school that applies for
new construction, or a major or minor maintenance
project, without the support of the local school
district. She asked whether there is an opportunity
for the charter school to appeal the local district's
decision directly to the department or to the State
Board of Education & Early Development (state board).
Representative Munoz suggested that one of the
criterion of a strong charter school law is to provide
a charter school with the ability to appeal to another
authority. For example, a charter school facility may
be denied for political reasons.
MR. KITO said he would research her question.
9:17:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to the document in the
committee packet from Dean Kern, director, U.S.
Department of Education, to Paul Prussing, dated
7/29/09, and called attention to page 4. She read
[original punctuation provided]:
Local school boards and the state board both
have to approve a charter school application
(p.20), and the state board will not approve
without the local board doing so first.
There does also not seem to be any appeals
process in place.
9:18:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted this discussion is directed at
Amendment 1, that makes the "municipality in which the
charter school is located ... financially responsible
for that charter school, but it also establishes that
it's a program through the department."
9:18:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ directed attention to the
document in the committee packet titled, "Sec.
14.11.020, Assumption of responsibilities,"
paraphrasing from the document, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
(a) The assembly or council of a
municipality that is a school district or a
regional school board may, by resolution or
majority vote of the body, assume the
responsibilities relating to the planning,
design, and construction of a school....
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ noted that charter schools fund
planning, design, and construction by alternative
means. She expressed her concern that the local
assembly would take from the charter school the
responsibilities for planning, design, and
construction.
9:20:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON agreed that the question exists of
whether the state should consider making charter
schools independent of public schools. The options
are: (1) the charter school is the responsibility of
the school district and a subset of public schools;
(2) the charter school is independent of the school
district, is not affiliated with the school district,
and has the ability to appeal and "go around" the
school district. He pointed out that Amendment 1
addresses the assumption of responsibilities made
under the current structure of laws regarding charter
schools. Chair Seaton opined the creation of
independent charter schools would require a separate
bill.
9:22:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ removed her objection. There
being no further objection Amendment 1, as amended,
was adopted.
9:23:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON restated House Bill No. 393 (Amended),
26-LS1550\A.2, was the working document before the
committee. He then opened public testimony on the
bill.
9:24:06 AM
LORETTA NARDI, President, Partnership for Alaska
Charter Schools, Inc., informed the committee she was
representing parents, teachers, and administrators of
charter school students throughout the state. She
expressed her appreciation for the committee's work
and noted that charter schools have proven themselves
during ten years of operation in Alaska. Ms. Nardi
said that charter schools use operating funds to pay
for facilities-unlike traditional public schools-thus
diverting operating funds from students. Charter
schools are often housed in leased facilities and need
assistance to secure and maintain their facilities.
Federal grants for school facilities are available;
however, charter schools presently are not
competitive, and she appreciated the committee's
recognition of legislation that will strengthen the
charter school laws so that Alaska can compete for
federal grants for charter school facilities and other
options.
9:26:46 AM
JOHN WEETMAN, Assistant Superintendent of
Administration, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School
District, stated his support for HB 393, paraphrasing
from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Good Morning, my name is John Weetman and
I am the Assistant Superintendent of
Administration for the Mat-Su Borough School
District. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify on House Bill 393.
I strongly support House Bill 393 and
believe it will significantly benefit the
Mat-Su Borough School District's five
charter schools, that represent
approximately 1000 students, and their
families.
I do believe that House Bill 393 will
assist the State of Alaska and local school
districts in improving the ability to secure
future Federal start up and implementation
funds for Alaskan Charter Schools.
Next year, the five charter schools in the
Mat-Su Borough School District will pay over
$1,000,000 in rent; many of these facilities
were never designed for student learning and
safety. I do believe that House Bill 393
will assist the State of Alaska in improving
its ability to secure future Federal
facility funds for Alaskan Charter Schools,
thus allowing rent dollars to go directly to
students' education.
House Bill 393 will remove the cap which
limits the number of charter schools in the
state of Alaska and creates a mechanism that
establishes and administers per-pupil
facilities aid programs for Alaskan charter
schools.
Charter schools offer parents and children
choice within the public school system. They
provide smaller learning communities; they
assist in drop out prevention and increased
graduation rates. The children, parents and
community members of Alaska charter schools
are deserving of facilities that provide and
a safe, affordable learning environment for
their children.
In conclusion, House Bill 393 creates
legislation that benefits Alaska's children.
I thank all of you for your time and I
applaud your efforts in assisting the
students of Alaska. A special thanks to
Representative Keller for sponsoring this
bill.
9:29:12 AM
BARBARA GERARD, Administrator, Academy Charter School,
informed the committee that across the state community
and state leaders have expressed support for charter
schools. She described the difficulties of procuring
a suitable facility for a charter school after it has
been approved. Such difficulties include finding a
building for 150 students that meets codes for fire
and environmental safety, and equipping the building,
all without start-up or implementation funding from
the federal government that could total up to $400,000
per school. Ms. Gerard opined that charter school
organizers face a monumental task to open their
school. However, the proposed legislation would
remove "the cap" and increase the state's likelihood
that Alaska's charter schools would win federal start-
up and implementation grants, as well as facility
funding grants. Ms. Gerard encouraged the passage of
HB 393 to strengthen Alaska's charter school law, and
provide avenues to funding sources and innovative
opportunities for education.
9:31:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that there was federal
funding available to charter schools in the '90s.
9:32:20 AM
MS. GERARD stated that Alaska earned federal start-up
funds in the amount of $145,000 at one time; however,
the application process has changed, and four or five
years have passed since Alaska charter schools have
been granted funds. The language of the state's
charter school legislation undermines the scoring of
applications.
9:33:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked for the location of the Academy
Charter School.
MS. GERARD answered that the school is in Palmer.
9:33:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
9:34:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked about the bill's five-year
impact on the local community.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed his confidence in the
local school board and municipality to "work those
things out." He spoke of the school facility crisis
in Wasilla and said the bill creates an opportunity to
alleviate the shortage. In further response to
Representative Buch, Representative Keller said the
proposed legislation would not place an undue burden
on the community, but is a positive tool with which
the local community can construct schools.
9:36:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned whether the
community must show its willingness by a vote.
9:37:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred back to the document in the
committee packet from Legal Services dated 3/30/10.
The memorandum noted that the Alaska Constitution
prohibits "local acts" without a majority vote of
qualified voters. In addition, Legislative Legal and
Research Services advised that although the proposed
legislation does not require a vote, the conservative
approach on local acts of a large financial impact is
to have a vote.
9:39:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked, "Could this proceed
the way it's written, without a vote of the local
people?"
9:39:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ assumed leases and maintenance
were included. She asked whether leases would be
taken to a vote of the local community or to the local
council.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that local school board
members have close contact with their constituents and
represent the community well on issues.
9:41:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee the projects
aspect was amended out of the bill; in fact, the bill
would establish a program for a grant process from
state government. He reviewed how the program would
grant federal funds to charter schools and reimburse
local municipalities at various rates.
9:43:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed charter schools can
get money for construction, major maintenance, or to
pay a lease.
CHAIR SEATON concurred, and added that the funds could
be used towards facility acquisition costs, whether
for the purchase, or lease, of a facility.
9:45:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ suggested the costs of a five-
year lease could be estimated on the school's
application for funding.
9:45:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that the funding
approval process is competitive and difficult. She
warned that lease operating costs would not compete
with the cost of purchasing a building.
9:45:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked for comment from the department on
state aid for costs of charter school "construction,
lease, and major maintenance."
9:46:24 AM
EDDY JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities
Section, Department of Education and Early Development
(EED), informed the committee that the language in the
bill was taken directly out of a federal program, thus
the intent of the federal program is that the state
program will provide some funding for leased
facilities. He opined this component of the bill is
not to pay the lease, but to pay for renovations of a
lease, which is not allowed by the state major
maintenance program; in fact, renovations are only
paid for at district-owned facilities.
9:47:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON confirmed the understanding of the
committee.
9:47:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said the state's interpretation
should follow the more expansive federal intention,
and allow the money to be used for leases, instead of
a more restrictive interpretation.
MR. JEANS advised that a lease must be considered an
operational cost. He stated, "I see the operational
cost as a separate item versus the maintenance or
rehabilitation of a facility. You're always going to
have operational costs, and that's what a lease is."
9:48:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ cited the situation of the local
charter school, which pays its lease out of the base
student allocation (BSA). If the federal program
allowed the school to use federal funding to offset
this cost, the state process should also.
MR. JEANS agreed that the lease cost comes out of the
BSA; however, operational costs for facilities come
out of every school's BSA and are borne by the school
district through the foundation program.
9:50:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ stressed the difference is that
the charter school does not have a facility provided
by the district and is paying for operational costs-in
addition to the facility-out of its per student
budget.
9:50:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for the purpose of the
provision in the proposed legislation that removes the
cap of 60 charter schools.
9:51:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated removing the cap is to
improve Alaska's chances at winning grants. Of
course, this change would also enhance educational
choices.
MR. JEANS, referring to the previous discussion
regarding bonding to cover the local share of the cost
of a facility, noted that when the department enters
into a grant agreement with a school district, it does
not release state or federal funds without
confirmation of the participating share from the local
district. He acknowledged that each project is
evaluated at the local level, and small projects do
not necessarily go before the public for a vote, but
large scale projects do, even though it is not
required. The department will require evidence and a
guarantee of the source of the local contribution.
9:53:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the department
would hire personnel to administer the program.
MR. JEANS advised there are one and one-half new
positions as indicated by the fiscal note.
9:54:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON remarked that project funding cannot be
supplanted on the local or the federal level.
9:55:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report HB 393, as
amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 393(EDC) was reported
from the House Education Standing Committee.
9:56:23 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee,
the House Education Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:56 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 393 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/24/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Support public.pdf |
HEDC 3/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/15/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 393 |
| Charter School Stats.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Charter School App.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Charter School App sec 2.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Charter School Rating Temp.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Charter School Rating Temp sec 2.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Charter School Regs.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 2009 USDOE EED application reveiwer comments.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| CS facilitites Fed Reg..pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Charter Facility Guidance.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Charter School Status 3-17-2010.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HEC 3.15.10 responses HB393.doc |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| CS HB 206 (EDC) April 22 workdraft.pdf |
HEDC 1/20/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| HSGR10WMPT07.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 10MScoringGuide07.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 10RScoringGuide07.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 10WScoringGuide07.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| AK-PracticeTest-Gr10_TAD.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HSGR10RPT07.pdf |
HEDC 3/31/2010 8:00:00 AM |