Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
02/05/2014 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB245 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| HB220 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 245 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 220 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 245-SCHOOL FUNDING: REQ'D LOCAL CONTRIBUTION
8:02:42 AM
CHAIR GATTIS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 245, "An Act repealing the required local
contribution to school funding; making conforming changes; and
providing for an effective date."
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:02 a.m.
8:03:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 245, paraphrasing from the sponsor statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 245 would reform the inequitable and
onerous state mandate for local contributions for
organized areas in the state of Alaska.
The State of Alaska has a duty under Article VI,
Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to "establish and maintain a system of public schools
open to all children of the state". The Fiscal burden
placed on local governments that must bear that burden
is enormous and consuming. The State of Alaska
provides only partial funding to organized boroughs,
home-rule cities in the unorganized borough, and
first-class cities in the unorganized borough to carry
out the State's responsibility for education by
deducting a "local contribution" of 2.6 mils from the
level of state aid as stated in 14.17.410(G)(2).
In the area of Alaska outside organized boroughs,
home-rule cities in the unorganized boroughs, and
first-class cities in the unorganized borough, the
State carries out its duties for education through
State "educational service areas" established under AS
14.08.031, which exempt them from the required local
contribution. There are presently 19 State educational
service areas, referred to as regional educational
attendance areas (REAAs).
In 1963 Alaska State Legislature passed, and Governor
Egan signed into law, the "Mandatory Borough Act",
dictating that certain regions of Alaska; those
encompassing Ketchikan, Juneau, Sitka, Kodiak Island,
Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, the Matanuska Susitna
valleys and Fairbanks to form organized boroughs by
January 1, 1964. Furthermore, Section 1 of the
Mandatory Borough Act promised that, "No area
incorporated as an organized borough shall be deprived
of state services, revenues, or assistance or be
otherwise penalized because of incorporation.
HB 245 removes the "required local contribution"
penalty imposed by the State of Alaska on organized
areas and again fulfills its Constitutional
responsibility.
8:06:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON added that HB 245 does not include
contributions received by districts, from the federal
government, under the Impact Aid law [now Title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)]. She
also pointed out that the Mandatory Borough Act (MBA) was not
entered into willingly by Fairbanks residents, who voted against
having it imposed. Further, she interpreted the intent of the
MBA to be a vehicle for the areas to develop and maintain parks
and services, such as fire and police departments; the cities
would be self-funding and not reliant on the state to support
these entities.
8:06:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON provided a historical view of the mil
procedure, paraphrasing from a statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
A Little History Lesson
First Foundation Formula
(Basic Need) - 1/2 (Federal Impact Aid) - 3.5 mil
levy = State Allocation to District
1969 North Slope Oil Leases
Windfall surplus begins flowing in to the State
Treasury
Pressure Builds from Organized cities and borough
for greater state assistance
Legislature begins debates on amending the
foundation formula
Second Foundation Formula
State support starts out at 90 percent of basic
need and throughout the 1970's slowly increases
to 100 percent by 1980.
Oil Price Crash/Local Contribution
1986 oil prices crash to $9.00 a barrel and the
State panics
State needs as much money as possible and a new
formula for education funding is proposed.
1988 Local Contribution is back and at the 4 mil
rate.
SB 182 (2012)
In order to put all organized districts back on
an equal playing field the required local
contribution was reduced to 2.65 mils and it was
based on the Full and True Value.
8:08:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that the 2.65 mill rate was
expected to function as an equalizer. Property taxes have, and
continue to be, the vehicle for collecting this revenue and many
boroughs and cities contribute above the required rate. She
opined that it should be incumbent on the state to provide full
educational funding based on the established formula. Directing
attention to the fiscal note, contained in the committee packet,
she indicated that the impact on boroughs and cities equates to
$206 million.
8:09:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that the bill addresses property
tax contributions and does not include impact aid. He asked if
50 percent would still be subtracted from the REAAs, effectively
causing those areas to contribute in a greater proportion while
exempting municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON clarified that the impact aid is
subtracted, currently at the 100 percent level for REAAs, and
that would be made the same for eligible municipalities. She
directed attention to the committee packet handout provided by
the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development (EED),
titled "FY 2014 Foundation Projection," dated September 2013,
page 9, to point out the labeled columns "D", "Eligible Federal
Impact AID," and "E", "Impact AID Percent," respectively, and
said that passage of HB 245 would place every area at the 100
percent level; column "E." She pointed out that there are very
few communities that do not receive some amount of federal
impact aid.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his understanding that many areas
are contributing some amount to local schools, and the bill
would restrict this contribution to an amount not to exceed 23
percent; possibly resulting in a reduction of allowable local
contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that the contribution cap
would remain in place, hence, some areas would need to reduce
the amount currently being collected, but could still exceed the
required amount. She said:
All this would do, would be basically backfilling that
portion that the state, by constitution, should be
[paying].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that, currently, nearly all
districts are exceeding the local contribution requirement;
"eating into that 23 percent." He expressed concern stating:
If the required local contribution, which is greater
than the 23 percent is taken away, and only the 23
percent is available, that means that the ability of
local residents to contribute to their schools is
reduced.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON used Fairbanks as an example and said
the city contributes $48 million, although the requirement is
only $26 million, and the cap allows for an additional $13
million. Under HB 245, she explained, the $26 million would
become approximately $20, after deduction of the impact aid.
She continued:
[The city] would be able to give $13 of that $20, to
go up to the cap amount. The additional $7 million
dollars that's left over ... they would give ... back
to tax payers, but they could [fund] other things that
the municipality needs.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON emphasized her understanding that this
measure would allow an expansion of funding possibilities.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON described his understanding that HB 245
would restrict Fairbanks from contributing over the cap,
resulting in the loss of $7 million.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON clarified the hypothetical Fairbanks
example that the state would be required to contribute the
amount currently being paid by the cities 2.6 mil levy; $26
million. Additionally, after receiving the full funding by the
state, the city could also contribute $13 million. She
theorized that schools would receive more funding in most areas.
If a community is already funding to the cap, there would not be
a change, but other areas could realize a community option for
contributing to the cap or using municipal taxes for other
purposes; the tax is already being collected.
8:16:55 AM
DAN BOCKHORST, Manager, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, stated
support for HB 245, paraphrasing from a written statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Every good law should have at least the following
three characteristics:
1. it should be fair;
2. it should reflect sound public policy;
3. and, of course, it must be constitutional.
The law imposing the Required Local Contribution fails
on all three points. For that reason, the Ketchikan
Gateway Borough strongly supports HB 245, repealing
the Required Local Contribution.
8:17:58 AM
Let me explain.
First, the Required Local Contribution is far from
fair.
It creates two distinct classes of citizens:
1. Those in 34 municipal governments required by
State law to operate school districts; and
2. Those in the remainder of the state - comprising
19 other school districts in Alaska.
It imposes a crushing fiscal burden on the 34
municipal governments, shifting to them about twenty
percent of the State's constitutional duty to
adequately fund schools in those districts.
At the same time, the State exempts from the other 19
districts from the Required Local Contribution.
There is no rational basis for the disparate treatment
of the two classes. Some of the most economically
distressed areas of Alaska are among the 34
municipalities subject to the Required Local
Contribution, while some of the most prosperous
regions of Alaska are among the 19 districts that
enjoy exemption from the Required Local Contribution.
The Required Local Contribution also fails the
fairness test in that it breaches a promise to the
citizens of Alaska, expressed in State law in 1963,
that boroughs will not be deprived of State revenues
or otherwise penalized because of incorporation.
Second, the Required Local Contribution fails the
sound public policy test.
The Required Local Contribution is a grinding public
policy that punishes organized boroughs - the
foundation for local government in Alaska.
The framers of our constitution intended that the
State would create inducements for boroughs.
8:20:05 AM
The Alaska Supreme Court has held that our
constitution encourages the formation of boroughs.
Jay Hammond -- former State Representative, State
Senator, and Governor - offered a far different
perspective when he wrote:
Attractive enough on paper, in practice, the organized
borough concept had little appeal to most communities.
After all, why should they tax themselves for services
received from the state, gratis?
Governor Hammond told it like it is. Consider the
following six facts:
1. Today, 55 years after statehood, more than half
of Alaska still lies outside the boundaries of
organized boroughs.
2. Few have freely chosen to incorporate. Residents
of mandatory boroughs make up 95% of all borough
residents today. This fact alone makes the need
compelling to honor the 1963 promise in State law of
equal and fair treatment of boroughs. HB 245 would do
much to restore luster to that promise.
3. Today, 55 years after statehood, those who have
freely chosen to form boroughs are outnumbered by
those who have freely chosen to not be in a borough by
a margin of more than 2 to 1.
4. Seven years ago, voters in one region with
resources described by the State Attorney General's
office as "the envy of most organized boroughs"
rejected borough incorporation by a margin of more
than 9 to 1.
5. Having written and sponsored the 1963 Mandatory
Borough Act, former Representative John Rader,
repudiated the measure years later.
6. Today State officials speak in terms of the
"misery of boroughs" rather than the vision of those
who wrote our constitution.
These circumstances are the "canary in the coal mine"
telling you that the Required Local Contribution is
terrible public policy that weighs heavily on
students, taxpayers, and other citizens of organized
boroughs.
Third, the Required Local Contribution is
unconstitutional.
After six years of study and analyses -- after six
years of attempts to accomplish what is proposed by HB
245 - the Ketchikan Gateway Borough filed suit last
month over unconstitutional aspects of the Required
Local Contribution.
The law setting out the Required Local Contribution
dedicates public funds to a particular purpose,
thereby violating Article 9, Section 7 of our
Constitution - the "Anti-Dedication Clause."
The Required Local Contribution also operates in a
manner such that the dedicated funds are never subject
to legislative appropriation, which violates Article
9, Section 13.
Further, the Required Local Contribution law
circumvents the Governor's veto authority, in
violation of Article 2, Section 15.
8:24:18 AM
In conclusion, the Required Local Contribution:
is not fair,
is poor public policy, and
is clearly unconstitutional.
Therefore, I urge passage of HB 245.
8:24:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the Anchorage contribution
totals appear to be close to the cap, as indicated on the
previously cited EED handout. She asked what the funding source
would be to make up the difference under the proposed
legislation, pointing out that several hundred million dollars
would need to be found in the current, deficit budget.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated her belief that municipalities
should not be required to pick-up where the state fails to meet
constitutional obligations; despite deficit conditions. She
said funding alternatives could be considered, such as
reinstating the now defunct head-tax. At a recent community
discussion in Nenana regarding whether or not to organize as a
borough, she reported, the topic was discussed regarding the 2.6
mil requirement. The general sentiment of the group questioned
why Nenana should organize considering the imposition that would
require collection of a levy to cover costs that are currently
being paid for by the state. The issue created a stumbling
block for the community, as citizens discussed options for
better local services, and the costs involved, and the debt that
could be incurred as a municipality, due to the education costs
passed on by the state. She said:
That really is the issue at this point:
Constitutional[ly] what do you believe - is it the
responsibility of the state to fulfill this mandate,
or is it only the responsibility of the state when
they have funds.
8:27:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she served as Mayor of the Kodiak
Island Borough, and recalled discussions that arose regarding
REAAs not being required to contribute local funds for education
and the seeming unfairness of the situation; however, the
constitutionality was never questioned. The impact on the state
budget could be a concern, but, having reviewed the Ketchikan
Gateway Borough v. State of Alaska, Case No. 1KE-14-16 CI
(2014), she opined that the courts could find in the city's
favor and the state would be required to comply.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON clarified that impact aid does
represent a variable and it would be erroneous to say that the
REAAs do not contribute; however, means exists to bring equality
throughout the state and remove the penalty to organize areas
and form boroughs. She stressed that the question is not about
affordability, but rather state responsibility; HB 245 does not
advocate mandatory boroughs but removes a major barrier. She
stressed that organizing an area should bring focus to the
services a borough can provide not a penalty that puts a newly
formed area immediately into a financial hole. To a follow-up
question she said Alaska appears to be unique, among the United
States, in the requirements and mandates it places on organized
areas.
8:30:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for a definition of basic
education needs, suggested that the state may be meeting those
requirements, and opined that other costs may be considered add-
ons.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON indicated that basic educational need
requirements are a purview of legislative oversight; residing
within the jurisdiction of this committee.
8:32:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the previously cited EED
handout to clarify the Anchorage area contributions.
8:33:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the scope of HB 245 would
require the state to build schools, which would change the
current 70:30 bonding structure and eliminate the 60:40 local
contribution for building and zoning schools.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON responded that the bill has no impact
on bonding or capitol project funding structures or maintenance
requirements. The bill requires the state to fully fund
districts based on the education formula; the municipalities
would continue to fund building/maintenance in accordance with
current practices.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that the state has been found by
court to be adequately funding basic education. He noted that
additional, supplemental components have been added to enrich
the educational experience and provide learning options.
However, limiting the ability of borough tax payers to
contribute to local schools based on a percentage of the cap
could require the state to "back-fill" as much as $200 million,
which he predicted would not occur. Further, districts not yet
contributing to the cap maximum already have the option to
increase the local budget. Overall, he opined, it appears that
this bill would reduce funding to the education system.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON emphasized that no district would
receive less funding, should HB 245 pass. The distinction lies
in where the money is sourced, and she said it's a matter of
"who's going to pitch in more," the state or the municipality.
The constitution stipulates that it is the responsibility of the
state to provide a basic education, funding aside, and residents
were promised that this service would be a benefit of organizing
an area as a borough. The Fairbanks North Star Borough would
prefer to not be in that standing, considering the services
currently being received, she opined, and further stated that
Alaskan government is unduly placing a financial burden on
municipalities. The state may have funding problems but passing
deficits onto communities is not fair, resulting in collection
of property taxes which in turn subtracts dollars from local
economies, she finished.
8:39:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned the variable percentages used
by districts to calculate the municipality v. state share of
school building costs, and asked whether that should not also
become part of the argument.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON acknowledged that the required building
contribution ratios have changed over the years, but the
question is not addressed in this bill.
8:41:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that if the bill were to pass and
the state fully fund education, the municipalities would not be
mandated to contribute, and she opined it would be wonderful for
the cities to have more money. However, consideration must be
given first to the effects this legislation would have on the
state budget and subsequent control of the schools; and second
the legislature is required to consider funding of all programs,
including schools. She suggested that the municipalities would
probably need to pick up the deficit in another service area.
Unintended circumstances tend to arise, and she stressed the
need to proceed with caution. It is important for the committee
to consider policy, but the legislative as a whole must address
budgetary concerns.
8:44:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON opined that the municipal contributions
do not entitle the cities to have added local control of the
schools. She then reiterated the previously detailed points
that this legislation addresses: a state constitutional
responsibility reneged upon, an unfair mandatory borough act,
and the resulting financial burden placed on municipalities.
She underscored that it is not a matter of funding, but
fulfilling a promise made to the residents of the state.
8:46:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there is a means to skirt the cap
and asked whether it is a state or federal mandated.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON expressed her understanding that prior
to the cap, differing amounts were collected and some areas
could not afford to contribute. The federal government stepped
in to help equalize the situation.
8:47:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the state laws are
changed on a regular basis and promises once made are sometimes
amended. She held firm that unintended consequences arise and
the financial reality of the state must be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated her belief that the constitution
holds a separate standard than other statues that are amended.
8:49:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the Alaska Municipal League
(AML) supports the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON had no comment, as the AML has not
weighed in on the issue.
8:49:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the fiscal note, indicating
designated reserves and endowments, and asked about the
plausibility and source for funding HB 245, should it pass; $200
million above the endowment amount would be needed.
ELIZABETH SWEENEY NUDELMAN, Director, School Finance and
Facilities Section, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), said funds are not currently available to
meet the requirements of the bill. To a follow-up question
regarding the source of the funding, as required by the proposed
legislation, she offered to provide further information.
8:51:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for the total dollar amount that
is paid for a kindergarten through twelfth grade education; all
contributors combined.
MS. NUDELMAN offered to provide the information, and suggested
that the website for the department provides the information, as
well.
8:53:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what considerations would be given
to fund this legislation should it pass.
MS. NUDELMAN suggested that the question is one for the
legislature to take up. The constitutionality has not been
determined.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the governor's budget
provides funding.
MS. NUDELMAN said HB 245 was filed after the governor issued his
budget.
8:55:05 AM
MIKE COONS, stated support for HB 245, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I fully endorse Representative Tammie Wilson's HB 245.
I have read the bill and except for a couple non-
substantive proposed changes in wording, I fully agree
that changing from, shall to may for
cities/municipalities and boroughs paying additional
education funding is one of the tenants of
conservative thought, less government and more local
control.
8:56:00 AM
In point of fact, should this bill pass and be signed
into law, I would suggest that the local communities,
if they want to continue with funding, change who pays
for education from the property taxes. I would
suggest that those of us who do not have children in
school, either because the children are grown up and
out of the district, parents use private or home
schooling or like myself, no children, make education
at the local level, truly a user fee. Then I would
suggest this then leaves the boroughs the opportunity
to help protect the public with having a Sheriff form
of law enforcement. The last numbers I heard was that
60 percent of my property tax goes to education, I
would have no problem with paying for a Sheriff
Department. I would dare say the cost would not come
to that previous 60 percent, which then gives me a
decrease in property taxes and gives me better public
safety on top of the State Troopers!
As to those who will scream and holler about their
increased property taxes for their children, I respond
with the following. In many cases at assembly
meetings, I have heard the parents demand for full
funding of education and many times I've heard, "I'll
pay more taxes to get my kid's education!" This is a
good opportunity for those people to; as Vice
President Joe Biden likes to say: "Get some skin in
the game." Now is a good time to put up. I would
dare say that the additional offshoot to this would be
more parental/taxpayer involvement in their child's
education.
I am sure that NEA will have lot's to say negatively
about this. For this will potentially make School
Boards trim the budgets to be more student friendly
than NEA Alaska friendly. This bill along with HB 196
will undoubtedly reduce or take away NEA's power over
the School Districts. Add to that, Senator Dunleavy's
proposed Constitutional Amendment SJR 9 and we
potentially have a "perfect storm" to really do
something substantive toward better local control,
less NEA Union control and a more student defined
approach to education that will have students more
ready for life vs being pegs filling holes like Common
Cores approach and the new standards are pushing for.
In closing, costs can be and if all bills on education
are passed this session the cost of education should
drop while performance standards are increased.
8:59:06 AM
DIANE HUTCHISON, Member, Fairbanks North Star Borough City
Assembly, indicated that the city has not as yet taken a formal
stance on HB 245; however, she said her intention is to
introduce a letter of support for the assembly's approval. She
continued, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I am Diane Hutchison and I currently serve on the
Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly and was the
Presiding Officer the past two years. The Assembly
has not yet taken a position on this bill, but I can
relay to you that a Resolution co-sponsored by myself,
the Borough Mayor, and the current Presiding Officer
will be brought for a vote at our next regular
Assembly meeting next Thursday, asking our Assembly to
join the Ketchikan Gateway Borough's lawsuit as an
amicus curiae party. Following the vote on that
resolution, I plan to co-sponsor a resolution in
support of Rep. Wilson's bill - brought forth with
appropriate wording regarding the previous
resolution's vote.
The reasons I personally support the lawsuit and Rep.
Wilson's bill are as follows:
For FY 2014 - the FNSB budgeted local contribution to
the schools was around $48M and out of that $48M,
almost $27M is the required local contribution and the
budgeted additional supplementary funding is over
$21M.
I believe that the $27M in required local contribution
is a defacto State tax on the residents of the FNSB
that is not imposed on all residents of our state.
After Ketchikan Gateway Borough presented to our
Assembly in December, I asked how many people in the
room paid a state income tax - no one raised their
hand, but when I asked how many paid local property
taxes (including the required local contribution to
the school district, everyone in the room raised their
hands. The point is that every time the state
mandates more basic need proportional funding on the
municipalities that support school districts, the
municipalities have to tax their residents to pay a
State "mandated tax".
I believe this State "mandated tax" is
unconstitutional, unfair and a disincentive for any
unincorporated area to ever form a Borough again.
Last year, our Borough passed bond issues to fund
construction of a new school and fund major
renovations on others. These were projects that we
had come to Juneau and asked for capital funding - the
new school to replace a junior high that has been
seismically condemned and we are trying structural
reinforcements just to keep it usable for the students
to be safe. The funding was denied by the legislature
as it often is. We came as a local government with
our hands out to Juneau, when we could be paying for
these projects ourselves, without indebting future
generations to pay off bond issues - if the state
would fulfill its obligation to fund basic need and
let us fulfill our obligation to the local taxpayers
of supplemental education funding, investing in local
capital projects and reducing some of the tax burden
on people who are strapped by their property taxes and
high energy costs.
9:03:40 AM
We just heard yesterday that Flint Hills Resources
(the FNSB's 4th largest taxpayer), is discontinuing
its refining operations in North Pole. I am in full
support of SB 21 - we need to get increased throughput
in TAPS and I think that SB 21 will help do that - BUT
that does not relieve the State of its constitutional
duty to fund basic education - for everyone in the
State, no matter what area of the state they reside
in.
Thank you for listening and for your service to our
state. I hope you will give HB 245 serious
consideration because I believe the taxpayers in the
State of Alaska - in all areas of the State, will
start realizing how big of an issue this is. PLEASE
REMEMBER - THE ONLY NON-CORPORATE TAXPAYERS IN THIS
STATE ARE RESIDENTS OF MUNICIPALITIES WHO AS
INDIVIDUALS PAY FOR STATE SERVICES THROUGH THEIR
PROPERTY TAXES WHENEVER THE STATE TRIES TO SHIFT ITS
BURDEN TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND FORCES THEM TO BECOME
STATE TAX COLLECTORS. IT IS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS TO
ALL THE RESIDENTS OF THE STATE AND THE PROMISE THAT
BOROUGHS WOULD NOT BE PENALIZED OR DEPRIVED OF STATE
SERVICES BY BECOMING BOROUGHS - BUT THAT IS EXACTLY
WHAT HAPPENS EVERY TIME THE LEGISLATURE TRIES TO
BALANCE THE STATE BUDGET ON THE BACK OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
She opined that this is an unconstitutional action, as
brought by the bill sponsor.
9:05:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the greatest issue appears to
be that REAA's are funded via impact aid versus municipality
tax. He suggested that a statewide property tax could be
invoked as an equalizer, and asked if that would be an
acceptable alternative.
MS. HUTCHISON responded yes, and said a statewide property tax
would be appropriate. Otherwise incorporated state properties
are the only contributors.
9:07:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON reminded the committee that the bill is
focused on ensuring that the state is upholding a constitutional
mandate; not discovery of funding sources.
9:10:42 AM
DAVID NEES stated support for HB 245 and referred to a 1961
Anchorage newspaper article regarding the Anchorage school
district. At that time, he reported, Anchorage had a mill rate
of 11.1 and the budget was split 47 percent from the state and
47 percent local contributions. He said the bill places
responsibility back on the state's shoulders. He said how this
bill is funded is for the legislature to solve, and opined that
it would be good to handle this now, prior to being mandated by
court order.
9:12:12 AM
POSIE BOGGS stated support for HB 245 and said the requirements
as stated in the constitution should be followed. She
continued, asking the committee to consider the cost that
illiteracy represents. The impact of students not fulfilling
learning requirements creates a cost to the state.
9:14:38 AM
BARBARA HANEY stated support for HB 245, and said it is
important for the state to fulfill its obligations.
CHAIR GATTIS announced HB 245 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 220 State Board Resolution.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 HSGQE Relevancy.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 HSGQE_ContractualCosts.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 Section Analysis.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 Sponsors Statement A.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 220 Statewide HSGQE Results.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB220 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB 245 Hearing Request.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 Sponsor statement.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 Supporting document Bockhorst.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 Supporting documents - analyses of legal issues.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB 245 Supporting documents - local contributions - Ketchikan.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB245 Fiscal Note - Comm Reg Affairs.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB245 Fiscal Note Designated Reserves Endowments.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| HB245 FiscalNote DEED.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |
| Edc Confirmation - Enright resume.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
Confirmation: |
| HB220-public comment.PDF |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 220 |
| HB245 Ketchikan vs AK.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 245 |