Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/19/2006 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB362 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 362 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 19, 2006
9:42 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 9:42:13 AM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SUMMARY
HB 362 "An Act increasing the base student allocation
used in the formula for state financing of public
education; and providing for an effective date."
CS HB 362 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of Committee with
two new fiscal notes and individual
recommendations.
HOUSE BILL NO. 362
"An Act increasing the base student allocation used in the
formula for state financing of public education; and
providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Meyer noted that public testimony had concluded in
the previous week, on April 7. He noted that since there
had been a considerable amount of testimony, no further
information would be taken.
Representative Chenault MOVED Amendment #1, 24-GH2038\A.2,
Mischel, 4/5/06. Representative Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Chenault spoke to the amendment. He noted
that area cost factors had been a major issue for a number
of years in his school district, as well as Statewide. He
discussed the impact of SB 36, and noted that the numbers
may have been speculative at the time the bill was
introduced. He pointed out that over the past ten years,
studies had been completed by the Department of Education.
The results of these studies seem to indicate that initial
calculations were in fact flawed from various perspectives.
He proposed that the time had come to take right action. He
noted that the amendment was based on a portion of the
Eischer study. He expressed his discomfort with the
accuracy of the study, but pointed out that districts
Statewide had been hurt by SB 36. He stated that over the
past two years, he had discussed this problem with various
legislators, and stressed that it must be addressed at this
time. He commented that to add more foundation funding did
not address the problem, but rather widened the
discrepancies between cost differential numbers and thereby
exacerbated the problem.
9:46:48 AM
Representative Chenault stated his intention to promote
contention with the cost differential. He WITHDREW the
amendment, citing the current ongoing negotiations toward an
appropriate compromise. He reiterated his belief that
simply placing more money into schools would not ultimately
remedy the cost differential. He noted that all options had
drawbacks, and that discussions were ongoing. He expressed
that he did not wish to hold up the bill, but to address
this issue through another avenue, creating a remedy that
would ultimately solve the problem. He stated his belief
that the amendment would pass on the House Floor, but noted
that it depended in the long run on support from the Senate
as well. He stressed the importance of efforts to reach a
compromise that would be acceptable to both the House and
Senate.
9:48:51 AM
Representative Chenault suggested that legislators have the
courage to address the cost differential, which he commended
as right action.
Representative Kelly suggested that if in the negotiations a
compromise was reached to address all districts, a cap
should also be implemented, as well as a hold harmless
clause for certain areas. He suggested that the underlying
issues were less clear than simply the numbers.
Representative Foster thanked the Co-Chair for his work
on the amendment, and expressed support.
Representative Joule also expressed his support and thanked
the Co-Chair for raising important issues. He noted that
the issues facing schools since SB 36 were not always raised
and discussed on the Floor. He acknowledged that the court
system might ultimately solve the question, but suggested
that discussion of the issues was necessary.
9:52:15 AM
Co-Chair Meyer commented that his office had worked with
Representative Chenault for two years to create a solution
for all districts Statewide, and had reached a point of
exhaustion. He acknowledged that Representative Chenault's
district had lost students, and therefore lost money.
However, he stressed that a long-term solution was needed,
and expressed a desire to resolve this legislatively and not
through the courts.
9:53:20 AM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED Conceptual Amendment #2a (Meyer).
Representative Chenault OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Meyer discussed the amendment. He expressed the
desire to address not only the cost differential, but also
to add to the foundation formula. He pointed out that even
with the Governor's proposed $90 million increase in
funding, most schools were falling short. He noted that his
own district was currently $2 million short of meeting basic
needs. He explained that the Amendment would result in an
overall increase of $6 million, increasing the Governor's
proposed amount to $96 million. The Amendment changes the
foundation formula amount from $5,352 to $5,380. Co-Chair
Meyer proposed that it would benefit all districts with an
increase.
9:54:56 AM
Representative Chenault REMOVED his OBJECTION.
9:56:12 AM
Representative Kelly MAINTAINED an OBJECTION. He expressed
concern over the significant increases in the State budget.
While he acknowledged the legitimate need of schools, he
pointed out Committee concern over escalating costs, and
suggested that the State budget could not support continued
increases.
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the University had received
a fifteen percent increase, and suggested that parity was
needed between higher education and K-12 education. He
proposed that K-12 education should be the first funding
priority.
9:57:19 AM
Representative Foster expressed support of the amendment,
and pointed out that, between the expense of the retirement
system and increased energy costs, the Governor's $90
million did not actually represent much of a budget increase
for schools.
Representative Stoltze stated that his school districts
needed an increase to meet their shortfalls, and noted that
the proposed increase was still not adequate.
Representative Joule stated that he would support the
amendment, but did not find it adequate. He stressed the
need to support all districts, and expressed that to take
care of just one district when others were in similar need
was unsettling. He acknowledged the Amendment as a small,
positive step forward.
9:59:18 AM
Representative Kerttula commented that with smaller
districts such as Juneau, the gap that needed to be filled
was more significant. She expressed support for the
Amendment.
A ROLL CALL VOTE was taken on the MOTION:
FAVOR: Joule, Kertulla, Moses, Stoltze, Weyrauch, Foster,
Hawker, Meyer.
OPPOSE: Kelly, Holm, Chemault.
The Amendment PASSED on a Vote of 3 to 8.
10:01:18 AM
Representative Weyhrauch MOVED Amendment #2, 24-GH2038\A.4,
Mischel, 4/5/06. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
Representative Weyhrauch referred to the need for
incremental adjustments. He recalled earlier discussions
surrounding long-term solutions and commented on
overcrowding in classrooms. He proposed that the amount in
Amendment #2 was identical to the amount contained in
Amendment #1 if one were to add the changes to the funding
formula. He pointed out that the funds needed for larger
metropolitan areas were being addressed, but not for smaller
areas.
Representative Chenault for clarification on the total
dollar amount of the increase proposed by the amendment.
Representative Weyrauch stated that it totaled $24 million
over the current proposed budget.
10:02:57 AM
Representative Hawker expressed that he had been prepared
to support Amendment #1, and stated that he would support
Amendment #2.
Co-Chair Meyer called an AT EASE.
10:03:48 AM
10:11:25 AM
Co-Chair Meyer RECONVENED the Committee.
Representative Weyhrauch explained that his calculations
were inaccurate, and would have led to an increase of $370
million and not $24 million. He MOVED TO AMEND his
amendment to the amount of $5,474. Responding to a question
by Co-Chair Meyer, Representative Weyrauch confirmed that
the revised Amendment would result in an aggregate increase
of $24 million.
There being NO OBJECTION, the Amendment was changed to
reflect the new amount. Co-Chair Meyer MAINTAINED his
OBJECTION to the Amendment.
Representative Hawker maintained his previous support of
the amendment, but noted that he was not privy to all
executive discussions between bodies. He strongly urged the
Committee to add some amount to address costs and equities.
Co-Chair Meyer expressed support of the amendment, but also
stated his concern that passage may hurt the chances of a
change to cost differential. He stated he would vote
against the amendment.
Representative Kelly noted that he was still against the
amendment.
10:14:22 AM
Representative Joule stated that the amendment was the only
increment under discussion, but compared it to the process
over the PPT and gas pipeline. He expressed uncertainty
over the end result, but a desire for a positive outcome.
He understood concern over the Co chairs not implementing
the cost differential, but suggested that a simple amendment
would remedy the problem. He stated that at this point,
with negotiations underway, he might support the current
steps being made, in the hope that the ultimate goals would
be accomplished.
10:16:14 AM
Representative Joule acknowledged the pressure for all
legislators to find a common ground, and in the interest of
allowing negotiations, he might defer to that process.
Co-Chair Meyer assured the Committee that the Co-chair would
be undeterred in his efforts.
A ROLL CALL VOTE was taken on Amendment #2.
FAVOR: Kertulla; Moses; Weyrauch.
OPPOSE: Kelly; Stoltze; Foster; Hawker; Holm; Joule; Meyer;
Chemault.
The AMENDMENT FAILED on a VOTE of 3 to 8.
10:18:56 AM
Representative Chenault commented that the process was
ongoing and would be arduous. He restated the issue of the
cost differential, and the desire of some to formulate a new
study. He proposed that this would continue the equity
problem in the State, and that at some point there would
need to be right action. He stated that waiting for a
perfect formula did not help school districts, and proposed
that now was the time for action.
10:20:12 AM
Representative Kelly reiterated the idea of a budget
cap, and requested that if an adjustment such as in
Amendment #1 occurred, that it not be in addition to the
cap. He raised the issue of sustainability.
Representative Foster MOVED TO REPORT HB 362 out of
Committee as Amended, with individual recommendations and
two new fiscal notes: DEED, Component #141; DEED, Component
2735. There being NO OBJECTIONS it was SO ORDERED.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:21 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|