Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
05/07/2019 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB68 | |
| SB29 | |
| HB75 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 7, 2019
9:00 a.m.
9:00:04 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
David Scott, Staff, Senator Bert Stedman; Captain Ed
Sinclair, Deputy Marine Pilot, Southeast Alaska Pilotage
Area, Juneau; Representative Sara Rasmussen, Sponsor;
Krysten Walker, Staff, Representative Sara Rasmussen; Lisa
Skiles Parady, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Daniel Walker, Superintendent, Lower Kuskokwim School
District, Bethel; Laura Hylton, Finance Director, Lake and
Peninsula School District, Alaska Peninsula; Sam Jordan,
Self, Juneau.
SUMMARY
HB 68 LABOR STDRS/SAFETY; WORKER COMPENSATION
CSHB 68(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development and one previously
published zero note: FN1 (LWF).
HB 75 INTERNET FOR SCHOOLS; FUNDING
HB 75 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 29 EXTEND BOARD OF MARINE PILOTS
SB 29 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to the division of labor standards
and safety; relating to the division of workers'
compensation; establishing the division of workers'
safety and compensation; and providing for an
effective date."
9:00:33 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston MOVED to REPORT CSHB 68(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 68(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development and one
previously published zero note: FN1 (LWF).
9:00:59 AM
AT EASE
9:02:04 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 29
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Marine Pilots; and providing for an effective date."
9:02:23 AM
DAVID SCOTT, STAFF, SENATOR BERT STEDMAN, introduced the
bill with the sponsor statement:
The Board of Marine Pilots (Board) protects the safety
of the public and the environment by licensing and
regulating marine pilots for almost all foreign
vessels and vessels over a certain size in Alaskan
waters. Board activities provide a good level of
assurance that marine pilot licensees are competent
and able to safely pilot passenger and cargo ships.
As required under Title 24 and Title 44 of the Alaska
statutes, the Legislative Budget and Audit Division
reviewed the actions of the Board of Marine Pilots.
The audit found a continued need for the Board and
that the Board is following the law, processing
investigations timely, and actively changing
regulations to "improve the industry and better
protect the public." The audit recommended the
Legislature extend the Board's termination date to
June 30, 2027.
SB 29 extends the termination date of the Board of
Marine Pilots to June 30, 2027.
9:04:23 AM
CAPTAIN ED SINCLAIR, DEPUTY MARINE PILOT, SOUTHEAST ALASKA
PILOTAGE AREA, JUNEAU, supported the bill and believed that
the board was performing well.
SB 29 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 75
"An Act relating to funding for Internet services for
school districts; and relating to the Alaska higher
education investment fund."
9:05:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation. She read from prepared remarks:
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
For the record, Im Sara Rasmussen, representing
District 22, the Sand Lake area of Anchorage. I am
here with my staff, Krysten Walker.
I appreciate the committee taking the time today to
hear House Bill 75. This bill raises the minimum
standard for internet in schools from 10 megabits per
second to 25 megabits per second. This works to
provide equal access to education for all children
regardless of where the student lives by improving
access to bandwidth. This gives teachers additional
tools, including access to resources and other
educators.
The Federal E-Rate program allows districts to apply
for discounted internet services based on their
participation rate in the free and reduced school
lunch programs, which covers up to 90% of the cost of
internet. The state's Broadband Assistance Grant, or
BAG program, fills the remaining gap to get schools up
to the minimum speed, which is 25 megabits per second
under HB 75.
The House Education Committee Substitute made a few
changes to the bill, as outlined in your packet.
First, the phrase "a minimum of" was removed to clear
up ambiguity identified by the Department. This makes
it clear that the BAG program will only fund schools
to get up to the 25 megabits per second benchmark and
will not fund schools to go higher than 25.
Second, the last two sections of the bill were
removed. These sections identified the funding source
as the Alaska higher education investment fund. The
current version funds the program with general funds.
Moving to the fiscal note There is a small error in
the fiscal note. Currently, it shows funds would be
needed in FY 2020. The application period for the BAG
program ends in March each year for applications for
funds for the following school year. Because it is now
past March and the bill has not passed, the funds will
not be needed until FY 2021.
There is one issue flagged by Legislative Finance.
This bill may cause Alaska to fall out of compliance
with the federal Disparity Test for equalized school
funding. The Senate Finance Committee added
conditional language to the senate companion, SB 74,
allowing the bill to take effect only after the state
has received a waiver. My plan for this bill is to
match the senate companion and would ask the committee
to consider a committee substitute or an amendment.
We have invited representatives from Legislative
Finance as well as the Department of Education and
Early Development for further explanation.
9:07:50 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz inquired whether the 25 megabits per
second (Mbps) was enough for students online testing and
met the states needs. Representative Rasmussen replied
that the federal recommendation was 100 (Mbps) and the bill
was an incremental approach due to costs. She was unsure if
testing could be accomplished.
Co-Chair Wilson asked what raising the megabits to 25 would
allow the schools to do that they could not currently
accomplish under 10 (Mbps).
KRYSTEN WALKER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SARA RASMUSSEN,
deferred the answer to Lisa Parady (Executive Director,
Alaska Council of School Administrators) for specifics. She
knew that streaming video on Netflix or You Tube took
3(Mbps).
Co-Chair Wilson did not believe video was the same as
testing. She reiterated her question regarding what raising
the internet speed from 10 (Mbps) to 25 (Mbps) would allow
students to accomplish. Representative Rasmussen deferred
the question to Dr. Parady. Co-Chair Wilson asked if the
sponsor had done the research regarding raising the
internet speed. Representative Rasmussen replied that she
had included the list of schools currently operating at 10
(Mbps) that would increase to 25 (Mbps) and superintendents
from rural districts were available to testify.
Co-Chair Wilson asked the sponsor to provide the
information to the committee.
9:11:23 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked how many districts were operating
under 10 (Mbps). Ms. Walker answered with a reference to a
document in member's packets [2017-2018 School Year School
District Bandwidth Counts less than 25 Mbps (copy on
file)]. She noted that the list included two schools that
were under 10 (Mbps).
Co-Chair Wilson wondered why the two schools were not able
to utilize the grant program. Ms. Walker assumed that the
schools did not apply and deferred the answer to the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED). Co-
Chair Wilson wondered how a school that could not reach 10
(Mbps) could increase its bandwidth to 25 (Mbps). Ms.
Walker answered that the internet service providers ensured
the sponsor that they had the current infrastructure in
place to get all schools to 25 (Mbps) if they choose to
apply. Co-Chair Wilson asked if the sponsor had included
information that listed the cost per school to increase
bandwidth to 25 megabytes. She wondered if it would save
districts money in the long run and why districts could not
utilize BSA (base student allocation) funding. Ms. Walker
answered that the department had calculated the fiscal note
based on the districts costs for 10 (Mbps) and multiplied
the amounts by 2.5. Co-Chair Wilson clarified that her
question was why BSA funds were not utilized. Ms. Walker
deferred the answer to superintendents.
Co-Chair Wilson questioned whether the increase would move
the state any closer to utilizing virtual schools.
Representative Rasmussen answered in the affirmative. She
said that it would move the state closer to virtual
learning opportunities. Co-Chair Wilson asked if there were
any current state laws that prevented that from taking
place. Representative Rasmussen answered in the
affirmative. She believed that a statute required a teacher
to be physically present in a classroom. She reported that
she requested clarification from Legislative Legal
Services. Co-Chair Wilson reasoned that some districts were
having a difficult time recruiting teachers and believed
the bill would help.
9:15:04 AM
Representative Knopp asked whether the funds were
explicitly for increased broadband width or whether it
included infrastructure upgrades. Ms. Walker replied that
the legislation did not include any infrastructure
upgrades, which was why 25 (Mbps) was chosen. The internet
providers were able to provide service to that level
without major capital investments. Representative Knopp
asked whether all the schools had the capability to
increase its bandwidth to 25 (Mbps). He noted that Vice-
Chair Ortiz was shaking his head negatively. He wanted to
know what districts were eligible.
Representative Rasmussen responded that they had been told
by various internet providers that they had the ability to
provide up to 25 megabits per second to the districts.
Increasing speeds above the number in rural districts
would require major capital investment from the providers.
Representative Carpenter asked what the agreement would
look like between districts and the internet provider.
9:17:36 AM
Representative Rasmussen deferred the answer to DEED.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if every district could afford to
take on the cost. She acknowledged that it would give the
districts an increased opportunity because the state was
essentially providing a grant. Ms. Walker answered that up
to 90 percent of the internet service was covered by the
federal E Rate program. The local share of the internet
service was covered by the School BAG grant. Co-Chair
Wilson asked if they were providing free internet service
to every school in the state. She did not believe the
statement was accurate.
Representative LeBon cited the list of schools and school
districts. He was surprised to see schools in Anchorage and
Fairbanks included on the list. He noted that two schools
in Fairbanks had bandwidths at 20 (Mbps). He assumed that
the school district could cover the increase to 25 (Mbps).
He wondered whether his conclusion was incorrect.
Representative Rasmussen answered that she could not speak
to the intentions of every school without speaking to them.
9:20:10 AM
Representative LeBon realized his question was unfair. He
did not expect to see any Fairbanks schools on the list.
Representative Rasmussen was surprised to see some
Anchorage schools included on the list as well. She noted
that bandwidth was a statewide issue that deserved
attention.
Co-Chair Wilson relayed that the Fairbanks district
schools, including the schools that have a bandwidth over
25 (Mbps), could not perform testing without scheduling
schools over a number of days. She identified that as the
reason she was asking what school districts could
accomplish at 25 (Mbps) versus 10 (Mbps). Alternatively,
she considered whether the bill would help the state offer
virtual learning, especially in districts where it was
difficult to recruit teachers. She believed that it was
necessary to consider whether 25 (Mbps) was enough. She
noted that even with the grant program bandwidth was not
free to the schools.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard wanted to hear from the
department.
9:21:50 AM
LISA SKILES PARADY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COUNCIL OF
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, spoke in support of the legislation.
She believed that the issue was extremely important. She
recapped that the bill raised the minimum standard for
internet in schools from 10 megabits per second to 25
megabits per second and helped the districts pay for the
increase through the state's Broadband Assistance Grant
program. She shared that she had been working on the issue
for a long time. In 2015, she worked as a school
administrator for the North Slope Borough School District
when the first broadband increase to 10(Mbps) was
implemented. She elucidated that the plan was to
incrementally start increasing the broadband capability
with the leverage of the BAG program for federal dollars.
She understood that the cost to connect the entire state
was over $2 billion and was unattainable. She considered
the incremental approach an exceptional opportunity. She
relayed that increasing the bandwidth to outlying areas was
one of the association's highest priorities. She referred
to the organization's joint position statement and read
from the document (copy not on file):
Alaska's students need and deserve the full
transformative power of technology and equitable
access to online resources. Students, teachers and
school leaders of Alaska, some of whom live in the
most remote areas of the world, require access to
modern technology in order to transform learning,
create efficiencies, provide online health services,
and keep pace with their peers globally.
ACSA supports continuing the Broadband Assistance
Grant (BAG) and increasing the level of state funded
bandwidth for schools to a minimum of 25 megabits of
download per second. This funding leverages federal e-
rate funds at 8:1 to provide Alaska's students and
educators fair access to the digital world.
Dr. Skiles Parody pointed out that technology had been an
add-on to core instruction but was becoming increasingly
integrated with core instruction; without it, students
lacked equitable access. She maintained that reliable
access to the internet was a critical component to modern
learning. Many Alaskan students were unable to access the
internet at the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
minimum connectivity standard. She characterized the bill
as an investment. She emphasized that passing the bill
during the current session was important so the districts
could meet the annual filing window that was at the end of
March each year. If adopted, the following spring the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) and
school districts could apply for the following year. The
association wanted to ensure all schools had equitable
access to educational opportunities. She emphasized that
quality education required connectivity and ensured that
students received the education they deserved regardless of
where they lived.
9:29:19 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about why $1.8 million in funding
was left available with two schools remaining under 10
(Mbps) and why the two schools did not apply to get
connectivity up to 10 (Mbps). Dr. Skiles Parody answered
that the cap of 10 (Mbps) left money on the table. She did
not have the specific information regarding the two schools
that remained under 10 (Mbps). She voiced that the increase
still relied on the individual districts to contribute and
acknowledged that was impossible for some schools. Vice-
Chair Johnston stated that the cost for broadband had been
decreasing in Alaska. She wondered whether lower costs were
a trend and if low orbital satellites contributed to the
situation. Dr. Skiles Parady replied affirmatively. She
noted that a map was created that showed where the fiber
was located in relation to schools. She would provide the
map to members. She indicated that the map demonstrated the
need in the state and pointed to the schools that did not
have access to satellites or fiber. She spoke to the
inadequacies of the current internet speed. She believed
that increased bandwidth could extend the reach of good or
specialized teachers and help achieve equity. She believed
that a shift from 10 (Mbps) to 25 (Mbps) was beneficial.
Co-Chair Wilson reiterated her question regarding virtual
teaching related to students trying to qualify for the
states performance scholarship and whether other issues
besides inadequate broadband would interfere with virtual
schools. Dr. Skiles Parady thought that logistical issues
would need to be addressed. She maintained that the state
was looking at virtual education that would not be possible
without increased bandwidth. She noted that the joint House
and Senate Education Committee was examining the issue of
virtual schools. She was uncertain whether they would
replace teachers. Co-Chair Wilson contended that no one
wanted to replace teacher. She maintained that in schools
with a small number of students virtual learning could
ensure equity in education.
Co-Chair Foster cited a document included in members
titled, Household Broadband Guide(copy on file). He
pointed out that it highlighted what could be done at
various broadband speeds. He noted the chart showing Basic
Service at 3 (Mbps) to 8 (Mbps) for one user and one
device could have Basic functions: email, browsing, basic
video, Internet radio. He deduced that only 2 users could
utilize basic functions in a school with 10 (Mbps). He
turned to the Medium Service listing at 12 (Mbps) to 25
(Mbps) that enabled Basic functions plus one high demand
application: streaming HD video, multiparty video
conferencing, etc. He thought that the document was useful
to see how little could be done with basic and medium
service. He referenced a document showing the annual cost
of internet, e-rate portion, school portion, and school BAG
portion [document with no title] (copy on file). He
reported that St. Marys School District paid $428 thousand
annually for internet services, the E-rate paid $385
thousand, the BAG (Broadband Assistance Grant) grant
program paid $13 thousand and the remainder of $30 thousand
was paid by St. Marys. He calculated that the school paid
approximately 70 percent of the remainder. He moved to the
column showing the St. Paul school where the total internet
cost was $139 thousand, the E-rate paid $111 thousand, and
the school paid $11 thousand of the $28 thousand remaining.
The school paid 40 percent for St. Paul and 60 percent was
paid by the BAG program. He wondered about the disparity
and what formula was used.
9:39:05 AM
Dr. Skiles Parady that the grant was based on the free and
reduced lunch poverty formula by district that was
different for each district.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked how many districts had access to
more than one internet service provider. He wondered about
the level of competition in the state. Dr. Skiles Parady
responded that the council had been working on the exact
bill for four years. The bill died on the last day of
session the previous year. She answered that it was
determined that all providers could increase bandwidth to
25 (MBPS) and the number was not a prohibitive bar. Vice-
Chair Ortiz clarified that his question was about the cost
to the district. He imagined that the absence of
competition meant one district may have to pay a
substantial amount, more than districts with multiple
internet providers. He inquired about the percentage of
districts that only had access to one provider. Dr. Skiles
Parady deferred the answer to the providers.
Co-Chair Wilson interjected that the bill would be heard
during the afternoon meeting as well. She noted that HB 75
had a $7 million fiscal note, which she reasoned was why
the bill had not passed in the prior year. The Legislative
Finance Division (LFD) would speak to the fiscal note and
the disparity test. Dr. Skiles Parady replied that she was
working with DEED to help them obtain a waiver to offset
the formula used for the disparity test.
Co-Chair Wilson noted they would try to have the DEED
commissioner available during the afternoon meeting. She
reiterated her strong desire to ensure that virtual
teaching was available in order to give more tools to
districts and meet the need for specialized teachers in all
areas of the state.
9:43:56 AM
Co-Chair Wilson OPENED public testimony.
DANIEL WALKER, SUPERINTENDENT, LOWER KUSKOKWIM SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BETHEL (via teleconference), supported the bill.
He echoed support for comments made by Dr. Skiles Parady.
He shared that the district was the largest Regional
Educational Attendance Area (REAA) in the state with
approximately 4,100 students. He provided details about the
makeup of the district. He shared that he worked for the
Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) for 27 years and
remembered when there had not been internet connectivity.
He believed that access to quality broadband helped level
the playing field for rural districts. He strongly
supported internet access for LKSDs schools to provide
tools for students and teachers. He elaborated that the
district was on the forefront of building a distant
learning network. The network was a critical teaching tool
to engage students in the digital age. He stressed the
importance of internet access because it was very difficult
to provide qualified teachers for every subject. The
network consisted of 5 teaching studios offering 15
different classes; social studies, language arts, science,
math, and college dual credit courses. The current
bandwidth could not support the media rich content needed
for students. Overall, the district was woefully short of
the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) target of 1
mb per student. The district used its video conferencing
system to connect to remote villages in the district for
meetings and professional development. The bill would
enable the district to continue to increase its internet
capacity. He urged passage of the bill in the current year.
9:47:48 AM
Representative Carpenter asked how much the district
currently spent for internet access. Mr. Walker replied
that LKSD spent approximately $3 million from its regular
budget. Representative Carpenter asked how much was
subsidized in state and federal money. Mr. Walker answered
that the subsidies totaled roughly $28 million.
Representative Carpenter asked what the breakdown between
federal and state dollars was. Mr. Walker indicated that
the district was not eligible for the BAG grants in the
prior year because the district was utilizing the 10 (Mbps)
speed.
Co-Chair Wilson asked how much more regular internet
service would cost the district if it increased speed to 25
(Mbps). Mr. Walker did not know off the top of his head
what the cost was. The fact that the district was using $3
million out of its own current funds said a lot about the
need for the legislation. Co-Chair Wilson asked for
verification that the district was using $28 million in its
district on internet service. She wondered if there were
other beneficial ways the district could spend $28 million
besides internet. She stressed the large expense for only
10 (Mbps). Mr. Walker answered that the $28 million was the
e-rate subsidy and $3 million was the districts expense.
Co-Chair Wilson understood, but she reasoned that if the
state and federal government was going to spend $28 million
on 4,100 students that there may be a better way to use the
funds on students instead of giving it to internet
providers. She was concerned that the money was going to a
service that could elevate learning if used in other areas.
She understood that the money could not be used for
teachers and must be used for internet. She asked how he
could better expend the funds to benefit students other
than on internet services.
9:51:43 AM
Mr. Walker answered that one of the district's major
challenges was finding enough teachers. He did not believe
the district would have the ability to fill all its
positions. He communicated that an actual teacher in the
classroom was the most beneficial scenario, but he did not
believe it was a realistic goal. The ability to have access
to broadband internet had taken the walls down for the
district's students - it broadened their world. He believed
a balance was necessary. He acknowledged that the service
was expensive. The district chose terrestrial internet,
which removed the satellite. He delineated that terrestrial
internet was important for the distance learning network
because it removed the delay and caused a lower quality
experience for the end user. The district needed to make
sure the experience was on par with a live teacher in the
classroom. The district had chosen to have a dedicated
circuit, which meant that LKSD was not sharing with all the
other internet users in the area and provided the ability
for the schools to manage their internet. He commented that
bandwidth needed to be managed in order to provide online
testing and rich media experiences for the students.
9:54:51 AM
Representative Carpenter asked for a cost estimate of 25
(Mbps) service for the district. Mr. Walker did not
presently have the estimate.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if greater connectivity got the
district closer to individual learning plans and had the
district considered teaching coding. Mr. Walker answered
that the bill did get the district closer to the goal. He
noted that the district was currently at 10 percent of the
per student internet capacity recommended by the FCC. He
believed that it would take significant growth to get to
that point. He delineated that there were ways to manage
the bandwidth through caching and prioritizing certain
services, which the district engaged in. However, online
testing remained problematic and LKSD tested on certain
grade levels on certain days at certain schools. He
emphasized that increasing the bandwidth would be very
beneficial for the district and would get it closer to
achieving personalized individual learning. The district
was teaching coding and anticipated growth in the area.
9:57:14 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if online testing had impacts on
test scores - the student had to know the information and
how to use the computer. He wondered if there was a
correlation in districts that may not have significant
access to computers in general and test scores. Mr. Walker
answered it was challenging to determine the answer. He
believed for the first few years it probably had a small
impact, but as students advanced in school the tests became
easier to take.
9:59:31 AM
Co-Chair Wilson noted that she would leave public testimony
open until the afternoon meeting.
Vice-Chair Ortiz spoke to a districts limitations to
deliver a test online. He wondered if it impacted test
scores. Mr. Walker replied that the district had some
challenges with online testing that led to incredible
frustration for students and teachers. He noted that at
some point, when students got frustrated it led to them
shutting down and performing poorly. He believed that the
district had a decent experience with state testing but had
some challenges with math testing that was performed twice
each year. He observed that the situation had an impact.
10:02:19 AM
LAURA HYLTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR, LAKE AND PENINSULA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ALASKA PENINSULA (via teleconference), testified
in favor of the legislation. She stressed that bandwidth
was a critical piece of what the school did in its
classrooms daily. The district had offered some online
instruction via their master teachers that was limited by
bandwidth. The district worked carefully around scheduling
and managing internet. She explained that most of the
district had small rural one, two, and three teacher sites
that were K through 12 with a few larger schools. The
ability for a district teacher to teach high level classes
throughout the day helped the small schools achieve more by
exposure to better teachers and better instruction. She
stated that they barely pulled the work off at the 10
(Mbps) rate. Overall the system functioned, but they had
difficulties during testing and students had times when the
internet was disconnected. The teachers used many internet
resources to bring different learning experiences into the
classrooms. She strongly believed that increased bandwidth
was critical and urged support of the legislation.
10:05:30 AM
Co-Chair Wilson asked how much state funding the district
used, how much was federal, and the number of students
served. Ms. Hylton answered the district had 300 students
and their cost was $1.17 million. The E-rate covered over
$1 million, the BAG grant paid just over $5 thousand and
the district paid $118 thousand.
10:06:20 AM
SAM JORDAN, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He spoke to educational equity and
reported that providing it was challenging for the entire
country. Equity provided a baseline of common education
experience no matter where a student resided. Internet
access had become an equity issue over the past 20 years.
He noted that broadband access was an important requirement
for a good education. He supported increased broadband
width across the state.
10:08:18 AM
Co-Chair Wilson discussed the procedure and topics for the
afternoon hearing.
HB 75 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:11:01 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 29 Audit.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Fiscal Note Backup.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 29 |
| HB 75 Supporting Doc Broadband Networks map.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 75 |