Legislature(2025 - 2026)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/24/2025 03:30 PM Senate EDUCATION
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 | |
| Presentation(s): Capital Needs for School Facilities | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 24, 2025
3:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Löki Tobin, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Mike Cronk
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): CAPITAL NEEDS FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES
- HEARD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 69(RLS) AM
"An Act relating to education; relating to open enrollment in
public schools; relating to school and student performance
reports; relating to school and district accountability;
relating to charter schools; relating to an annual report for
correspondence study programs; relating to the base student
allocation; relating to reading proficiency incentive grants;
relating to wireless telecommunications devices in public
schools; relating to the duty of the legislature to pass a
public education appropriation bill; relating to the duty of the
governor to prepare a public education appropriation bill;
establishing the Task Force on Education Funding; relating to a
report on regulation of school districts; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LORI WEED, School Finance Manager
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented Capital Needs for School
Facilities.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:34:52 PM
CHAIR TOBIN called the Senate Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Kiehl, Stevens, Cronk, and Chair Tobin.
^PRESENTATION(S): CAPITAL NEEDS FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES
PRESENTATION(S): CAPITAL NEEDS FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES
3:36:06 PM
CHAIR TOBIN announced a presentation from the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED), Capital Needs for School
Facilities.
3:37:14 PM
LORI WEED, School Finance Manager, Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED), Juneau, Alaska, Co-presented Capital
Needs for School Facilities.
3:37:32 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 2 and shared DEED's mission, vision, and
purpose statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Mission, Vision, and Purpose
Purpose
An excellent education for every student every day.
Vision
All students will succeed in their education and work,
shape worthwhile and satisfying lives for themselves,
exemplify the best values of society, and be effective
in improving the character and quality of the world
about them. - Alaska Statute 14.03.015
Purpose
DEED exists to provide information, resources, and
leadership to support an excellent education for every
student every day.
3:37:59 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 3, and said the Facilities section
grounds itself in DEED's Strategic Priorities:
Strategic Priorities:
Alaska's Education Challenge
Five Shared Priorities:
1. Support all students to read at grade level by the
end of third grade.
2. Increase career, technical, and culturally relevant
education to meet student and workforce needs.
3. Close the achievement gap by ensuring equitable
educational rigor and resources.
4. Prepare, attract, and retain effective education
professionals.
5. Improve the safety and well-being of students
through school partnerships with families,
communities, and tribes.
3:38:36 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 4, Current Funding Mechanisms, and
discussed the following points:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Current Funding Mechanisms
1. School Construction Grant Fund (1990) AS 14.11.005
2. Major Maintenance Grant Fund (1993) AS 14.11.007
3. Regional Educational Attendance Area (REAA) and
Small Municipal School District School Fund (2010)
AS 14.11.030
- Indexed Fund
- DR Funding divided by percent of municipal
schools multiplied by 0.244 AS 14.11.025
4. School Debt Reimbursement (DR) Funding AS 14.11.102
MS. WEED said:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The current funding mechanisms were established in
Alaska statutes' title 14, chapter 11 and provide for
the department to oversee programs for the
Construction, Rehabilitation, and Improvement of
Schools and Education-Related Facilities. There are
two primary funds, the School Construction Grant Fund,
established in 1990, and the Major Maintenance Grant
Fund, which was established 1993.
This structure simplified the appropriation and
allocation system that was based on six different
funding lists, one for each of the project categories
identified in statute.
All grant projects funded under the chapter require a
participating share from the district: 2 percent, for
Regional Educational Attendance Areas (REAAs) and
between 5 and 35 percent for municipal school
districts.
The Regional Educational Attendance Area and Small
Municipal School District School Fund (which we
typically shorten to the REAA Fund) was created in
2010 as a result of the Kasayulie settlement as a
method of providing more equity in capital funding
between rural and urban schools; primarily those who
could participate in school bond debt reimbursement
and those who could not. Originally specific to REAAs
for school construction funding, it was expanded to
include small municipalities in 2013 and in 2018 the
purpose was expanded to include major maintenance.
This is a calculation indexed to the amount of the
state's school bond debt reimbursement, modified by a
ratio of municipal schools, and a constant factor of
0.244. The current funding capitalization in the
operating budget this year is about $22.9 million.
3:40:56 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked for clarification on the relationship between
REAA funds and school bond debt. She stated her understanding
that a portion of the resources allocated to REAA funds comes
from school bond debt proceeds. She requested further
explanation on how this relationship works.
MS. WEED explained that there is approximately a two-year lag in
the funding process. She stated that the amount included in the
state operating budget for municipal debt reimbursement is used
in a corresponding calculation. That amount is multiplied by the
ratio of municipal schools and then by a constant factor. The
resulting value determines the intended capitalization of the
REAA.
CHAIR TOBIN asked whether any resources have been allocated to
the REAA fund during the period of the school bond debt
moratorium.
MS. WEED confirmed that the statutory calculation for the REAA
fund has continued during the school bond debt moratorium. She
noted that in the first decade, the amount allocated was higher
due to more active debt repayment. When she began working in
facilities, the amount was approximately $45 million per year.
She added that the funding has gradually decreased over time.
3:42:13 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked whether the state is current on
obligations related to the Kasayulie case. He also inquired if
there is an expectation of facing another lawsuit in the future.
3:42:34 PM
MS. WEED stated that from the perspective of the Facilities
section at DEED, five schools were identified under the
Kasayulie case, and all five have been funded. She affirmed that
the department considers this obligation fulfilled. She said she
could not address the possibility of a second lawsuit.
3:43:04 PM
MS. WEED discussed the last point on slide 4, School Debt
Reimbursement, and said the following:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The School Bond Debt Reimbursement program is open to
all Cities and Boroughs that operate school districts.
Applications for a debt reimbursement project may be
received at any time a Debt Reimbursement program
allocation is open, or authorized. Because of the open
nature of the program in recent iterations, projects
are not ranked or evaluated for prioritized need;
although the scope and budgets are reviewed.
The funding authorizations for the program have been
approved by the legislature through statute in two
methods: most recently with an open-ended authority to
reimburse at set rates. Prior to the moratorium in
2015, the authorized rates for reimbursement by the
state was set at 60 and 70 percent, and new rates,
which are currently set to be in effect July 1, 2025,
will be at 40 and 50 percent reimbursement.
A previous method of program authorization established
a maximum amount of project allocation per municipal
population or enrollment range. This method was
primarily used between 1990 and 2006.
3:44:16 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 5, Current Project Categories (AS
14.11.013) (School Construction and Major Maintenance), and said
each project submitted to the department must fall within at
least one of the identified categories below:
Current Project Categories (AS 14.11.013)
(School Construction and Major Maintenance)
(A) Avert imminent danger or correct life-threatening
situations;
(B) House students who would otherwise be unhoused;
for purposes of this subparagraph, students are
considered unhoused if the students attend school
in temporary facilities;
(C) Protect the structure of existing school
facilities;
(D) Correct building code deficiencies that require
major repair or rehabilitation in order for the
facility to continue to be used for the
educational program;
(E) Achieve an operating cost savings;
(F) Modify or rehabilitate facilities for the purpose
of improving the instructional program;
(G) Meet an educational need not specified in (A)
(F) of this paragraph, identified by the
department
MS. WEED said these categories are assigned to school
construction and major maintenance in AS 14.11.135. When a
project is assigned a category and hence to a specific grant
fund, the ranking lists for School Construction and Major
Maintenance do not further distinguish between the categories of
projects. Except for a limited number of questions only
applicable to School Construction, all projects are ranked using
the same scoring matrices. This provides a transparent framework
for the department to balance the wide-ranging scopes and
disparate types of projects from all across the state.
3:45:02 PM
CHAIR TOBIN referred to items currently on the project lists and
asked whether the department recommends addressing a specific
number of projects each year to ensure prioritized projects
receive funding. She also asked how the department determines
when schools are unsafe and in urgent need of resources.
3:45:48 PM
MS. WEED explained that while the list includes numerous
rankings, it does not specifically identify projects as imminent
dangers. She stated that the department distributes a points
list that districts can use to review scores for individual
projects. She noted that reviewing the life, safety, or
emergency scores within those categories may provide some
indication of the identified need based on the rankings.
3:46:26 PM
CHAIR TOBIN referenced a recent news article that brought
increased attention to school major maintenance issues. She
noted that the article mentioned a condemned school in
Sleetmute. She asked where that specific school appears on the
current project list.
3:46:38 PM
MS. WEED stated that the Sleetmute project was funded last year
and is no longer on the current list for that reason. She added
that the district plans to submit a new application for the
school's replacement, potentially next year.
3:46:55 PM
CHAIR TOBIN stated it was her understanding that the delay in
funding led to the Sleetmute school now requiring full
replacement. She asked if the project would become the
department's top priority when the new list is released and
whether the department would indicate that replacement is
necessary for the school to be considered safe.
3:47:09 PM
MS. WEED stated that the department does not speculate on
project rankings. She believed the application for Sleetmute
would be strong and presumed it would rank near the top of the
school construction list.
3:47:28 PM
SENATOR KIEHL observed that most projects on the school
construction grant fund list involve straightforward school
replacements or demolish-and-replace projects, with some
including renovations and additions. He noted that other
projects, such as security upgrades, kitchen remodels, secure
vestibules, and auditorium upgrades, do not sound like new
school construction. He asked what factors cause certain
projects to be placed on the school construction list rather
than the major maintenance list.
3:48:22 PM
MS. WEED explained that projects like secure vestibules fall
under Category F, which includes modifications or rehabilitation
to improve the instructional program. Because statute does not
define a specific security category, those projects are placed
on the school construction list. She noted that security
upgrades often involve structural changes such as moving walls
and creating new spaces. She added that renovation, addition, or
school replacement projects typically rank higher due to
additional scoring related to unhoused students and
overcrowding, which pushes them toward the top of the list.
3:49:19 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the term "renovate" typically aligns
with major maintenance projects. He asked how much a district
can improve its program through renovation while still
qualifying for a major maintenance project, rather than being
shifted to the more expensive school construction list.
MS. WEED responded that a renovation alone is not necessarily
less expensive than a renovation with an addition. She explained
that the added cost typically comes from the additional square
footage, which is also the reason those projects are placed on
the school construction list.
3:50:07 PM
SENATOR KIEHL clarified that by "more expensive," he was
referring to how far funding stretches. He pointed out that a
quarter billion dollars places a school at number five on the
school construction list, while the same amount on the major
maintenance list is number 81. He noted that funding school
construction projects means taking smaller bites. He added that
some older schools eventually require full renovations due to
outdated plumbing, wiring, and structural issues. He asked
whether moving a wall between classrooms to accommodate changing
educational needs could shift a project from maintenance to
school construction.
3:51:02 PM
MS. WEED asked Senator Kiehl to repeat the question.
SENATOR KIEHL asked how much flexibility exists when renovating
a structure to update its functionality before a project is
reclassified as new school construction. He expressed concern
that once a project moves to the school construction list, its
chances of being funded significantly decrease.
3:51:25 PM
MS. WEED explained that the classification often involves
interpretation, and the department typically considers the cost
breakdown. She stated that if more than 50 percent of the budget
is allocated to altering space, such as moving walls, rather
than replacing existing systems, the project may be categorized
as school construction.
SENATOR KIEHL expressed appreciation for the general rule of
thumb.
3:51:55 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked for an explanation of the application
process. He noted that some small districts report being unable
to afford the process, which he described as expensive. He asked
whether districts are responsible for funding the application,
including hiring experts, and whether the department assists in
preparing applications.
3:52:18 PM
MS. WEED stated that districts must complete certain preparatory
work before undertaking a project, which often includes hiring
professionalssuch as engineersfor condition surveys and
technical documentation. She noted that the department provides
tools to assist with the application process, and districts with
adequate staff and time may complete applications without
incurring those additional costs. She added that all related
application costs are reimbursable once the project is funded
and can be counted toward the district's required participation
share.
SENATOR STEVENS confirmed his understanding that application
costs are reimbursable and stated that medium-sized districts
like his can manage the process. He expressed concern for very
small districts and asked whether some are not applying because
they cannot afford the upfront costs.
3:53:30 PM
MS. WEED stated that some districts have anecdotally shared they
choose not to apply because they do not see a sufficient return
on investment. She explained that these districts prefer to use
their limited resources elsewhere rather than spend them on an
application process with uncertain funding outcomes.
3:53:51 PM
SENATOR STEVENS responded that it is concerning that some
districts do not apply.
3:54:00 PM
CHAIR TOBIN noted that approximately 76 percent of schools in
REAAs are state-owned. She asked for confirmation that, despite
state ownership, the school district is still responsible for
hiring engineers and other experts during the application
process.
3:54:17 PM
MS. WEED explained that, under the use permit agreement outlined
in regulation, districts have operational and management
authority over state-owned properties. She stated that AS 14.11
establishes the process for districts to apply for the capital
funding program.
CHAIR TOBIN asked for clarification on the term "secure
vestibule" and requested a description, noting that some people
may not understand what it refers to.
3:54:47 PM
MS. WEED explained that secure vestibules involve restructuring
entry spaces to create safer access points. She stated that
current security protocols require a secure entrance to allow
staff to identify an unwanted person and lock down the school if
needed. The purpose is to add an additional layer of protection
for students.
3:55:14 PM
CHAIR TOBIN responded that the [changes to school vestibules]
are a best practices effort to prevent school shootings.
SENATOR STEVENS recalled serving on a House committee years ago
when concerns were raised about the lack of standardized school
design. He noted that schools were individually designed
regardless of cost. He asked whether the state has implemented a
standard school design to be used across districts.
3:55:49 PM
MS. WEED explained that the commonly used term for standardized
designs is "prototype school." She said prototypes have proven
effective when multiple schools are needed within a short
timeframe, citing Anchorage and Fairbanks as examples where
prototype schools have been used. She mentioned that schools
built following the Molly Hootch case may have had similar,
though not necessarily identical, designs. She referenced a 2016
legislative study on prototyping, available on DEED's website
under the Facilities section. The study concluded that Alaska's
diverse conditions, such as climate, foundation needs, and site
limitations, make a single standard design impractical across
the state.
SENATOR STEVENS acknowledged the challenges of standardizing
school designs and commented that schools built during the Molly
Hootch period do look alike.
3:57:09 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 6, Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
Eligibility:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Eligibility
1. Six-year capital improvement plan
2. Functioning fixed asset inventory system (FAIS)
3. Proof of required property insurance
4. Certified preventive maintenance and facility
management program
5. Capital project and not routine maintenance
6. Participating share
MS. WEED said that to participate in a funding program under AS
14.11, a district must meet statutory requirements, including a
six-year capital improvement plan and documentation of a
functioning fixed asset inventory system. A district must
annually submit proof of property insurance on their facilities.
To help ensure that systems are in place to adequately care for
facilities, the district preventive maintenance and facility
management program must have current certification by the
department. Documentation ensuring that the project is a capital
project and not part of routine facility maintenance must be
provided, and they must acknowledge that the district is
responsible for meeting a portion of the project costs.
3:58:03 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 7, Grant Participation and Eligibility,
and discussed the following points:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Grant Participation and Eligibility
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Grant Application
Due from school districts on or before September 1
(annually)
• CIP Application materials are posted on our website
•(https://education.alaska.gov/facilities/facilitiesc
ip)
Project Ranking
• Ranked in accordance with criteria in AS 14.11 and
4 AAC 31
Eligibility
• Districts must have a six-year plan, a fixed asset
inventory system, adequate
• property loss insurance, and a preventive
maintenance and facility
• management program certified by the department
• CIP Priority Lists
• Initial lists are released on November 5
• Final lists are released after any appeals for
reconsideration are finalized
MS. WEED said the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) grant
applications are received by the department from districts
annually on or before September 1. Over the next two months the
department reviews and ranks all submitted applications. The
Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review Committee has established an
application and ranking matrix that has districts identify and
provide standard information that is necessary for development
and evaluation of a project. The application is reviewed and
approved annually at publicly noticed meetings.
MS. WEED stated that the department ensures eligibility criteria
are met. The department publishes the initial ranking list on
November 5. Districts can review department determinations on
ranking (scores), eligibility, and modifications to scope and
budget. If reconsideration is not favorable to a district, they
can appeal to an administrative hearing officer and decision by
the State Board of Education; ultimately able to be heard and
decided in the Superior Court if needed.
3:58:57 PM
MS. WEED added that the last major appeal was for the FY 2016
budget cycle, and was for the Kivalina new school construction
project, which was the last of the Kasaysulie projects.
3:59:24 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 8, What Does It Take to Fill Out an
Application:
[Original punctuation provided.]
What does it take to fill out an application?
Project Justification: Clearly articulate the need for
the project, including factors like facility age,
condition, and enrollment projections.
Scope of Work: Provide a detailed description of the
proposed work, including preliminary designs or
schematics.
Budget: Present a comprehensive budget outlining all
project costs and the district's participating share.
Supporting Documentation: Include educational
specifications, facility condition surveys, and any
other relevant assessments.
MS. WEED said:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The application prompts, and rewards through scoring,
districts to provide information needed for evaluation
of the project scope and necessity, by both the
district and the department. This includes existing
facility information like age and conditions, and an
evaluation of options. For new construction it should
include enrollment projections to justify the space
increase.
Scope of work is established through narrative and can
be supported by preliminary design documents. An
estimate of the budget is essential. Documentation
that supports the statements in the application
provides assurance of accuracy and allows the
department to more accurately evaluate the project
presented.
The department provides publications and tools for
districts to complete the application without
professional assistance. These tools can walk a
district through completing elements of the
application, including options costing analysis, a
condition survey, population projections, and
budgeting tool.
In addition to always being available to districts to
answer questions during application development,
Facilities staff at the department participate at
statewide conferences, including those for the Alaska
Association for School Business Officials and the
maintenance director conference hosted by the
Association of Alaska School Boards. Facilities also
hosts an annual training workshop on the application
and will be providing monthly question and answer
sessions for districts throughout the summer leading
up to the application deadline.
4:01:12 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 9, Grant Participation and Eligibility
FY 2016 - FY 2026, and shared a brief chart of the past 11 years
of ranked grant projects. She pointed out a dip that occurred in
FY 2019 - 2020, and explained how it was related to DEED's
ability to exercise authority to reallocate the fund balance in
the Major Maintenance Grant Fund and School Construction Grant
Fund. She said preparing for the presentation revealed an
interesting comparison. In this most recent decade (2015-2025),
there was an average of 117 applications and 60 percent
participation from districts. The requests were funded at
approximately 16 percent. In the first decade of the current
program structure (1994-2004) there was an average of 178
applications and 83 percent participation by districts. The
state was able to fund 25 percent of those requests. Needs are
not less now, but the ability to receive grant funding has been
less certain. She said to also consider that there were active
debt reimbursement authorizations during that first decade.
4:03:02 PM
SENATOR STEVENS requested Ms. Weed present the information to
the committee in writing.
4:03:15 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked, from the 102 major maintenance projects, 18
school construction projects, and 6 ineligible projects in FY
2016, how many have been completed or dropped from the list.
MS. WEED replied she would get back to the committee with an
answer.
4:03:41 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 10, Total Eligible Grant Projects and
Actual Grant Funding by Fiscal Year, a spreadsheet comparison.
She said it is important to note that the "Amount Funded" does
not include reappropriation or reallocation of fund balances.
Hence, there are years that projects were funded in years with
no appropriated funded amounts.
4:04:16 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 11, School Construction and Major
Maintenance Requests - FY 2026, and said the chart is a summary
of the FY 2026 School Construction Grant List and the Major
Maintenance Grant List totals. She reminded members that the
information is the total projects that districts chose to submit
applications for this past September:
[Original punctuation provided.]
School Construction and Major Maintenance Requests
FY 2026 (whole dollars)
School construction
Amount Requested $434,336,804
Eligible Amount $555,272,862
Prior funding $164,232,308
DEED Recommended Amount $391,040,554
Participating Share $27,928,783
State Share $363,111,771
Major Maintenance
Amount Requested $361,833,213
Eligible Amount $338,236,029
Prior Funding $5,107,092
DEED Recommended Amount $333,128,937
Participating Share $71,601,957
State Share $261,526,980
4:04:37 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for help decoding the school construction
information. He said it appeared that districts requested $434
million and another $121 million was identified as eligible
beyond that. He asked how more funding could be deemed eligible
than what was requested, and how that aligns with what the
department recommended.
4:05:11 PM
MS. WEED explained that this year was unusual due to a few
projects being returned for additional funding. She said
districts did not include previously funded amounts in their new
requests, so to calculate the eligible amount correctly, those
amounts had to be added back and then subtracted under prior
funding to reach the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED) recommended amount.
4:05:43 PM
MS. WEED noted that changes to the eligible amount can result
from DEED's evaluation of project scope, which may lead to
increases or reductions in project budgets. She stated that
inconsistencies between the application and the cost estimate
can prompt DEED to reassess and determine the most accurate
project scope.
4:06:53 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether subtracting prior funding from the
eligible amount results in the DEED recommended amount.
4:07:12 PM
MS. WEED replied that is how it works.
4:07:17 PM
CHAIR TOBIN asked for clarification on whether any portion of
the $363 million state share was requested in the FY 2026 budget
from the Governor's Office.
4:07:30 PM
MS. WEED stated that there was no item in the capital budget.
She explained that the REAA fund capitalization and the
operating budget will cover the first two requests on the school
construction list.
4:07:49 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 12, Total Six-Year Plan Requests by FY,
and said that when districts provide their six-year plans as an
eligibility requirement, the department compiles the data to
provide a snapshot of the current estimated need. Not all
districts submit in a given year, and the data only includes
projects identified by the districts. This is whole dollars,
with no adjustment for inflation.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Total Six-Year Plan Requests by FY (whole dollars)
Fiscal Year Total Six-Year Plan
Requests
FY2011 $1,414,709,641
FY2012 $1,996,553,852
FY2013 $1,920,005,961
FY2014 $1,800,302,814
FY2015 $1,947,268,401
FY2016 $1,765,110,357
FY2017 $1,789,440,292
FY2018 $1,687,522,113
FY2019 $1,663,103,027
FY2020 $1,389,376,552
FY2021 $1,298,785,855
FY2022 $1,336,041,672
FY2023 $1,429,740,452
FY2024 $1,507,086,565
FY2025 $1,762,639,760
FY2026 $1,846,645,049
4:08:22 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the six-year Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) requests include a variety of projects, not all of which
qualify as major maintenance. He asked if there is a way to
quantify how much of the six-year CIP requests are typically
funded by school districts through sources other than state
funding.
4:08:44 PM
MS. WEED stated that, in her observations, school districts do
not include all their needs in the six-year plan, especially
projects they expect to fund independently. She noted that
districts typically, but not always, include only those projects
for which they plan to request state aid.
4:09:08 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether Ms. Weed knows the proportionality.
MS. WEED replied that the department does not have the necessary
data and therefore cannot measure the proportion.
4:09:29 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 13, Recent Funding (SB 237 Report), and
said that DEED's report, School Capital Project Funding Under SB
237, provides additional data on the funding provided by the
state for school capital projects. The most recent edition was
published February 28, 2025. This documents the 1.75 billion
dollars in project funding between the bond debt reimbursement
and grant programs from FY 2011 through the current fiscal year:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Recent Funding (SB 237 Report)
• SB 237 (Chapter 93 SLA 2010) AS 14.11.035
• Annual report on school construction and major
maintenance funding
• First report completed in February 2013
• $1,749,967,541 in project funding 7/1/2010-
12/31/2024
• Total project value for Debt projects
• State share value for Grant projects
• February 2025 School Capital Project Funding
Under SB237 Report
• Project Funding by District (report Appendix A)
• Project Listing by District (report Appendix B)
4:09:59 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 14, Recommended and Funded Capital
Renewal by FY, and said the chart is an excerpt from the School
Capital Project Funding Report and pointed out the marked shift
in percentage of funded capital projects when the state
experienced a sharp decline in revenues and continued to have
budget pressure. She said there has been a significant reduction
in capital spending on school projects both through the grant
program and by instituting the moratorium on the debt
reimbursement program.
4:10:37 PM
MS. WEED moved to slide 15, Mt. Edgcumbe High School Deferred
Maintenance:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Mt. Edgecumbe High School Deferred Maintenance (MEHS)
(whole dollars)
• Current projects funded $11,424,000
• FY2026 deferred maintenance request $22,842,000
MS. WEED said that as a division of the state, Mt. Edgecumbe
High School (MEHS) is not part of the AS 14.11 grant program and
has received direct appropriations from the legislature or could
receive funding through the department of transportation and
public facilities' deferred maintenance list. Currently MEHS has
11.4 million dollars in funded projects. The department
submitted 22.8 million dollars in projects for MEHS in FY 2026
to the statewide deferred maintenance list.
4:11:11 PM
MS. WEED moved to slides 16 - 17, Additional Resources and
Contact Information, and said numerous resources are available
on DEED's Facilities website. She offered to answer questions.
SENATOR CRONK asked who makes decisions on major maintenance
projects for new schools. He referenced his 2019 experience
working on two schools in the Lower Yukon, including one built
on a cement pad over permafrost, which later required extensive
repairs. He also cited a project involving a 1970s Quonset hut
that was renovated instead of replaced, despite higher costs. He
expressed concern over accountability and emphasized the need to
spend limited funds wisely.
4:13:22 PM
MS. WEED acknowledged the school project and stated the original
construction occurred before her or the facility manager's
tenure. She assumed the foundation decision went through the
design process and was based on field design and a geotechnical
report. She called it an unfortunate situation
4:14:07 PM
SENATOR CRONK emphasized the need to spend funds carefully and
avoid costly mistakes, referencing past school projects as
concerning examples. He acknowledged that the two projects
occurred before the time of current leadership but wanted his
concerns on record.
4:14:43 PM
CHAIR TOBIN acknowledged widespread concern about school
maintenance and construction and stressed the need to uphold the
constitutional responsibility to maintain safe schools. She
asked the facility experts at DEED to share any recommended
statutory or process changes to improve efficiency and ensure
student safety.
MS. WEED stated that DEED could collaborate to identify
potential recommendations.
4:16:40 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Tobin adjourned the Senate Education Standing Committee
meeting at 3:41 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DEED Presentation - Capital Needs for School Facilities 03.23.2025.pdf |
SEDC 3/24/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| DEED FY 2026 School Construction and Major Maintenance Lists 03.24.2025.pdf |
SEDC 3/24/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| DEED SB 237 Capital Project Funding Report 2025 03.24.2025.pdf |
SEDC 3/24/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 237 |
| DEED MEHS Deferred Maintenance Projects Status 03.24.2025.pdf |
SEDC 3/24/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| Legislative Finance Report - Major Maintenance Capital Budget Vetoes 03.24.2025.pdf |
SEDC 3/24/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| Legislative Finance Report - REAA Fund Capitalization Vetoes 03.24.2025.pdf |
SEDC 3/24/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| HB 69 Testimony (S) EDC Volume 5 - Received as of 03.24.2025.pdf |
SEDC 3/24/2025 3:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| HB 69 Testimony (S) EDC Volume 6 - Received as of 03.24.2025.pdf |
SEDC 3/24/2025 3:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |