Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/10/2003 02:56 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to the limitation on payment of state
treasury warrants; and providing for an effective
date."
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute Work Draft, 23-LS0581\I, 4/10/03. There being NO
OBJECTION, the work draft was adopted.
LINDA SYLVESTER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH, testified
in support of the legislation. She explained that the
legislation would address stale dated warrants. She referred
to the supplemental budget, which included requests for
stale dated checks of up to two years. She stated that the
legislation amended current statute to limit warrants to six
months. She noted that under the proposed legislation, if a
warrant has not been cashed in six months, it would go to
the Unclaimed Properties Division. She maintained that this
process would not create an added burden for that division.
Ms. Sylvester also noted that the bill addressed
streamlining miscellaneous debts. She gave examples from
the supplemental budget of extremely irregular requests,
such as a charge of $26 for facsimile charges dating two
years prior. She maintained that the legislation would
eliminate stale dated warrants and miscellaneous
expenditures from the supplemental budget process.
KIM GARNERO, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION spoke in support of the
legislation. She noted that her department was responsible
for payments from the state of Alaska. She noted that if
warrants were not cashed within two years, the current
process of "stale dating" required the amount to revert to
the General Fund. She explained that, when a claim is later
made, a new appropriation was required to pay the warrants,
which could take up to one year for completion. She
reiterated that the fast track supplemental budget included
$44 thousand for stale dated warrants.
Ms. Garnero referenced the unclaimed property statute of
1986. She noted that the proposed legislation would shorten
the time frame and change the handling of stale dated
warrants by treating them as unclaimed property. She stated
that with the new procedure, the Department of Revenue would
actively seek the owners of the unclaimed warrant, thereby
expediting the process.
Ms. Garnero also stated that the proposed legislation
addressed the state's ability to pay vendors from a
previously dated invoice. She noted that current law
required a new appropriation for invoices older than two
years. She explained that the legislation would allow
agencies to simply pay the invoice from the current budget,
as long as they have an adequate lapse balance in the year
relating to the obligation. She maintained that this
procedure would more efficiently handle accounts with
vendors.
Representative Hawker referred to section 2 of the
legislation and asked for a definition of a valid approved
claim. Ms. Garnero defined it as a claim that has been
reviewed by an agency and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget.
RACHEL LEWIS, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE responded to a question by Representative Croft.
She explained that unclaimed property is held in perpetuity.
She noted that each year, several million dollars were
transferred from the Unclaimed Property Fund into the
General Fund, retaining a working balance.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 109 out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 109 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee, with one
previously published zero fiscal note from the Department of
Administration, and a "do pass" recommendation.
HOUSE BILL NO. 154
"An Act relating to admission to and advancement in
public schools of children under school age; and
providing for an effective date."
KEVIN SWEENEY, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, testified in support of the
legislation. He explained that current statute allows early
entry for students at the discretion of the school district,
providing the child meets board-prescribed standards. He
stated that the Department of Education and Early
Development feels that the intent of the statute was to
allow the early entry of a truly exceptional child. He
maintained that the provision has resulted in a two-year
kindergarten program in some districts, enrolling every four
year old in the program and counting them toward foundation
funding.
Mr. Sweeny stated that the legislation intends to clarify
the criteria for early enrollment for a four year old. He
clarified that the Department supports early enrollment of
kindergarten children with the intent of moving them on to
first grade in the next year. He observed that only a
portion of school districts currently provide services to
four year olds. He speculated that if all districts
provided this service, the fiscal note might be close to $63
million. He concluded that the effect of the bill would be
to clarify whether the state would provide thirteen or
fourteen years of funding per child.
BRUCE JOHNSON, ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA SCHOOL BOARDS,
testified in opposition to the legislation. He read from
prepared testimony as follows:
HB 154 in the estimation of our Association's members
will eliminate an important tool that many districts
have utilized to ensure an "equal start" for all
children. The inequality that currently exists among
children starting formal schooling is well documented.
A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute
validates that children enter school with wide
achievement disparities. This particular study found
that children in the highest socioeconomic group score
60 percent higher in mathematics and reading as
compared to the students in the lowest socioeconomic
group. Findings such as these help support what
educators have known for years - the "achievement gap"
begins long before children enter school. This bill,
should it become law, will severely limit a school
districts' capacity to better ensure that children
enter the public school starting gate on more equal
footing.
Please don't misunderstand AASB's position on this
issue - we believe strongly that all children can learn
regardless of their socioeconomic status. But the fact
remains that many children come to the schoolhouse door
without the advantages provided to children in our
state's more affluent homes, and this difference is
extremely difficult to overcome without opportunities
to start the schooling experience at a pre-school
level.
I would draw your attention to the tremendous advances
in student learning that are occurring in many of our
school districts. In nearly all cases, such as the
Chugach School District's Continuous Improvement model,
students pass through a system comprised of levels
based on demonstrated skills, not based on specific age
or time frames. Early intervention is key to students
acquiring the skills necessary to advance to the next
level. I would submit that a program targeted to needy
four year olds is far superior to retention at later
grades.
In summary, I urge you to reconsider HB 154 and if
needed, regulate the current law before denying the
opportunity for children most in need to enter public
schools on an equal footing with their peers. Thank
you.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Mr. Johnson
observed that there are approximately 10,000 students at any
grade level and acknowledged that Mr. Sweeny's cost
estimates were probably accurate. He conceded that to
institute a program for four year olds to fill available
classroom space was not proper policy. He pointed out that
many of the students served come from disadvantaged homes in
primarily rural districts. He encouraged the Department to
regulate the program, rather than eliminate an opportunity
for these most needy students.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Mr. Sweeney
responded that the Department was currently seeking
clarification of the statute that provides foundation
funding. He emphasized that the formula was intended to
fund school districts equally. He suggested that if the
program is provided to one district it must be offered to
all. He acknowledged the benefit of the programs, but
speculated that it was not the intent of this particular
statute.
Co-Chair Harris questioned why Anchorage and Fairbanks
school districts have not taken advantage of the program.
Mr. Sweeney maintained that more districts would wish to
take advantage of the program now that they know it is
available. He added that increased space requirements would
result in increased capital costs.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Harris, Mr. Johnson
noted that there would have to be a minimum of four hours
per day of instruction in order for a district to qualify
for full foundation funding. He added that there is reduced
need where there are quality pre-school or Head Start
programs. He noted that more urban communities offer these
types of opportunities. He noted that programs served less
than half of the children eligible for Head Start, since
there was not sufficient funding to serve the entire
population.
ROBERT BOYLE, NORTH WEST ARTIC BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
testified via teleconference in opposition to the
legislation. He quoted a study from the University of North
Carolina illustrating that the State could achieve a savings
of up to $13 thousand per pupil by investing in early years.
He noted that the savings was realized by avoiding remedial
services later.
Representative Joule asked if it would be to the State's
advantage to have children in the system earlier in school
districts with disadvantaged students. Mr. Sweeney once
again acknowledged the Department's recognition of the
program's value. He pointed out that most of the programs
receive Title 1 funding. He noted that the Department would
continue to provide full Title 1 funding at $4 thousand per
student if districts offered a preschool program. The
Department is asking for legislative clarification as to
whether the program should be supported through the
foundation formula.
Representative Stoltze noted that he had not heard from his
two school districts [Matsu and Anchorage] regarding the
legislation.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Anchorage School District
supports the program, even though they have not participated
in it. He noted that more urban districts serve students
with Head Start programs.
Co-Chair Harris speculated that the issue is of more
importance in other areas of the state, such as the
Northwest Arctic Borough.
Representative Foster pointed out that there are unique
needs throughout the state. Co-Chair Harris stressed that
the Committee must look at the State as a whole.
Representative Joule noted that there are only two Head
Start programs in his large district. He emphasized the
need for all young children to have access to early learning
opportunities.
HB 154 was HEARD and HELD in Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|