Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
03/16/2011 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
Presentation(s): Haines Borough School District Superintendent | |
HB15 | |
HB104 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
*+ | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
= | HB 104 | ||
HB 104-ALASKA PERFORMANCE SCHOLARSHIPS 9:33:39 AM CHAIR DICK announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 104, "An Act renaming the Alaska performance scholarship and relating to the scholarship and tax credits applicable to contributions to the scholarship; establishing the Alaska performance scholarship investment fund and the Alaska performance scholarship award fund and relating to the funds; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." [In front of the committee was the proposed committee substitute, Version I, adopted as the working draft on February 9, 2011] 9:35:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to a handout titled "In 2010, the House and Senate developed almost identical bills regarding the Merit scholarship. Each had a performance and needs-based component." [Included in the members' packets] He noted that, in 2010, both the House and the Senate had developed virtually identical bills, with a needs based and a merit component. He explained that the needs based scholarships would be extended first, with distribution of the merit based scholarships following. He reported that in the event of unmet need, it had been determined to require a $2000 work commitment by a student, with 50 percent of the balance of the unmet need to be paid by the needs based component of the merit scholarship. He noted that discussion for the non-traditional student had occurred, as well. He explained the difficulty of incorporating the merit based and needs-based into the program. He pointed out that a student had to qualify for the merit based scholarship in order to apply for the needs based scholarship. He shared that the Hathaway scholarship in Wyoming was the model for this program, and that it had a $400 million endowment. He remarked that Alaska was last in the US for participation in college by students from low income families, with half the participation of the next lowest state. 9:40:55 AM DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Postsecondary Education Commission, said that the needs based program, if adequately funded, could serve traditional as well as non-traditional students with supplemental aid. She expressed her concern that the combination of programs into one bill created extra complexity in a system that needed simplicity. 9:43:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved on to the next slide titled "Current Needs Discussion" and explained why the bill had failed to pass in 2010. He stated that the proposed funding mechanism was unacceptable to the finance committees. The merit scholarship was merged with another bill to establish a task force on higher education, with another task force to specifically look at scholarship funding. He said that the guidelines for the Alaska Advantage program had typically been for non-traditional students. He noted that the fiscal note for both bills had been similar, about $20 million for the merit based with another $17 million for the needs based component. He said the task force recommendation was to fund both under one funding source with a needs based component for the merit scholarship, and with a separate Alaska Advantage for non-traditional students that was funded in the same mechanism in the House and the Senate. 9:48:22 AM MS. BARRANS reported that there was no consensus among task force members regarding the legislative recommendation for the needs based supplement to the merit program. She cautioned that that there was the likelihood for competition, especially in times of inadequate funding, if there was a needs based component included with the merit program. 9:50:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed that there was a tension, but that there was the demand for a merit based program with a needs based component, and it had been met. He acknowledged the desire to also provide for the non-merit students with financial needs, as well. He opined that the Alaska Advantage program would offer more assurance to a student that by working hard they would be able to receive financial support through college. 9:52:26 AM MS. BARRANS expressed understanding for the intent to provide an entitlement within the merit based program, but she opined that this created a dilemma for having an entitlement for both merit and needs components for a small sector of students. She maintained that there was more flexibility from year to year, when dealing with funding fluctuations, if a smaller commitment was made to the entitlement program. 9:54:02 AM CHAIR DICK explained the three options for a funding source: Amerada Hess fund, general fund, or do not designate a source. He stated that the task force had been assigned to designate a funding source. 9:54:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed that there was a need for designated funding. He pointed out that a $400 million endowment, similar to the funding source for the Hathaway plan in Wyoming, was unacceptable to both the House and Senate Finance Committees. He stated that an endowment of at least $600 million would be necessary if the merit based scholarship was combined with either a needs based or an Alaska Advantage program. He pointed out that the task force recommended the funding be from interest and earnings to specified existing accounts, such as Amerada Hess, or from program receipts and dividends from non-renewable resources. 9:58:32 AM MS. BARRANS offered her belief that, from the governor's perspective, state funds were state funds, and the objective was to identify a sub fund in the general fund with investment earnings that could support the merit based program. She shared that the governor's goal was for predictability to an ongoing funding source. 9:59:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the funding source in the proposed committee substitute, Version I, was based on the revenue sharing model that would allow for the continued payout for an additional year beyond the first year that funding was not authorized, as a necessary transition. He noted that the task force had also identified a constitutional amendment for an endowment fund, or a separate fund of $600 million, as other possible funding sources. He pointed out that neither the House nor the Senate Finance Committee had agreed to either of these funding sources, hence the revenue sharing model had been adopted. 10:01:13 AM [HB 104 was held over.]
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB 15 NPR Story.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |
HB 15 Sectional Analysis.docx |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |
HB 15 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |
HB 15 State Legislatures Article.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |
HB 15 Time Magazine.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |
HB 15 Youth Concussion Ed Pack.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |
HB 15.PDF |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |
HB 15 ASAA questions.docx |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |
HB 15 Boston Univ Article.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |
HB 15 Brain Injury Associaiton of WA.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |
HB 15 Committee Substitute.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |
HB 15 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 3/16/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 15 |