Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/09/2023 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| Presentation: School Major Maintenance & Construction Update – Department of Education and Early Development | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 9, 2023
9:00 a.m.
9:00:09 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Hoffman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Heidi Teshner, Acting Commissioner, Department of Education
and Early Development; Joe Willhoite, Facilities Manager,
Department of Education and Early Development; Lori Weed,
School Finance Specialist, Department of Education and
Early Development; Elwin Blackwell, School Finance Manager,
Department of Education and Early Development.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: SCHOOL MAJOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and EARLY DEVELOPMENT
Co-Chair Hoffman discussed the agenda.
^PRESENTATION: SCHOOL MAJOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION
UPDATE DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and EARLY DEVELOPMENT
9:01:06 AM
HEIDI TESHNER, ACTING COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced herself and her staff.
She addressed a PowerPoint presentation entitled "State-Aid
for School Capital Projects: Grant and Debt," (copy on
file).
Acting Commissioner Teshner looked at slide 2, "Mission,
Vision, and Purpose:
Mission
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.
9:02:06 AM
Acting Commissioner Teshner spoke to slide 3, "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.
9:02:27 AM
Acting Commissioner Teshner referenced slide 4, " Historic
School Capital Funding":
1. Federal
2. State Funding Mechanisms (General Fund)
Grants (~1970)
General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds (2003, 2011)
AHFC Revenue Bonds (1999, 2001, 2002)
Debt Reimbursement (1971)
School Fund AS 43.50.140 (FY1999-present)
Others (i.e.: Insurance Fund AS 22.55.430)
3. Local Educational Agency (LEA)
Capital Reserves
Municipal Debt
Acting Commissioner Teshner noted that there would be
forthcoming detail on debt reimbursement.
9:04:17 AM
JOE WILLHOITE, FACILITIES MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, reviewed the mission statements as
they related to the facilities team. He relayed that he
worked to provide an accessible and safe environment that
invoked a source of pride for each student. He said his
team worked to close the achievement gap by ensuring
equitable educational rigor and resources. He spoke of his
role in preparing and attracting educational professionals
by maintaining proper facilities. He shared that his
background was in architecture, which he believed informed
his facilities work.
9:06:30 AM
Mr. Willhoite turned to slide 5, "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
• $1,585,824,383 in funding
• Total project value for Debt projects
• State share value for Grant projects
• Supplementary handout
• February 2022 AS 14.11.035 (SB 237) Report
• Project Funding by District (report
Appendix A)
• Project Listing by District (report
Appendix B)
Mr. Willhoite noted that Handout 1 was the School Capital
Project Funding under SB 237 (copy on file). He noted that
the 2022 supplementary report would be provided at the end
of the month. He thought it was important to note that the
funding was spread out over ten years.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for the funding numeric to be broken
down by how much was submitted by the legislature, as well
as the governors original proposal and subsequent
amendments.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked Acting Commissioner Teshner to
provide the information to the committee.
Acting Commissioner Teshner agreed to provide the
information.
Mr. Willhoite continued to address slide 6.
9:07:44 AM
Mr. Willhoite considered slide 6, "Current Funding
Options":
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
Mr. Willhoite noted that the first three bullet points went
through the capital improvement process (CIP) process. He
related that there was a moratorium on school debt
reimbursement through 2025.
9:08:56 AM
Mr. Willhoite displayed slide 7, "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
Mr. Willhoite noted that the items on slide 7 were in
categories as follows: school construction A, B, and F;
major maintenance C, D, and E. He noted that the
categories were not scoring metrics but rather categories
that CIP list applicants indicated as a focus and was a
filter through which the department decided if an item was
a school construction or major maintenance item. He
furthered that there was an emergency section in the CIP
review that gave an additional 50 points to the total
matrix and considered the emergency aspects of particular
projects. He said that it was incumbent on the districts to
reinforce the emergency on their applications.
Co-Chair Hoffman cited that another area that had come to
light in recent years was funding teacher housing to
facilitate better recruitment of teachers. After many years
the facilities needed repair. He asserted that considering
how the facilities could be better maintained should be
considered. He invited the commissioner to submit ideas on
how the matter could be addressed. He emphasized that if
the buildings were not maintained they would continue to
deteriorate.
9:11:55 AM
Mr. Willhoite highlighted slide 8, "Fund Category
Entity which showed a matrix of the funding categories
and was a guide to which funds went to which project type.
He addressed the center column what showed school
construction and major maintenance fund and noted that the
applied to all entity and project types. He furthered that
the REAA fund applied to all but the city/borough
districts. He stated that debt reimbursement did not
necessarily apply to school construction and major
maintenance, or REAA districts.
9:13:06 AM
Mr. Willhoite looked at slide 9, "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 maintenance
6. Participating share
Mr. Willhoite wanted to add important items for discussion
that were not included on the slide. He discussed what the
department did to support item 4 and item 5 on the list. He
relayed that all districts were visited on a five-year
rotation by members of a facilities team, which worked to
help schools through the process to establish and maintain
a healthy maintenance policy and system. He qualified that
the department did not do facility assessments but were
there in a support role to help with the understanding of
the importance of maintenance. He had a certain amount of
passion for maintenance. He emphasized that buildings were
perishable. He considered that the metric of sophistication
of a society was how well it maintained its buildings. He
believed that a thorough maintenance program might preclude
the need for a major maintenance program.
9:16:19 AM
Mr. Willhoite addressed slide 10, "Grant Participation and
Eligibility":
1. 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/facili
tiescip)
2. Project Ranking
Ranked in accordance with criteria in AS 14.11 and 4
AAC 31
3. 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
4. CIP Priority Lists
Initial lists are released on November 5
Final lists are released after any appeals for
reconsideration are finalized
9:17:38 AM
Mr. Willhoite advanced to slide 11, "Grant Participation
and Eligibility - FY2014 FY2024," which showed a bar
graph that illustrated participating CIP grants that had
been received over the last decade. He stressed that the
slide was not necessarily reflective of the ones that had
been fully funded. He noted that it took a certain amount
of money to put together a grant application. He cited
that major maintenance was the largest portion of the bars
shown, with school construction following, and ineligible
applications in lime green. He thought that the ineligible
applications were less than 4 percent, which could
hopefully be lowered to zero with additional training. He
shared that there would be a CIP workshop in the spring.
9:19:58 AM
Senator Bishop expressed his appreciation for Mr.
Willhoite.
9:20:27 AM
Mr. Willhoite looked at slide 12, "Grant Awards FY2014
FY2023," which showed a table that reflected grants awarded
over the last decade. He observed trends with areas that
showed no funding and noted that by and large an effort had
been made to provide some funding each year over the last
ten years.
9:21:02 AM
Mr. Willhoite showed slide 13, "Total Eligible Grant
Projects and Actual Grant Funding by Fiscal Year," which
showed a table detailing fiscal year/list, number of
projects, total eligible state share, number of projects
funded, and amount funded.
9:21:35 AM
Co-Chair Stedman referenced slide 13. He was curious about
the amount of maintenance and construction funding that had
been vetoed each year in the years reflected on the slide.
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered whether he wanted the FY23
number.
Co-Chair Stedman thought there were multiple years to use
as an example.
Co-Chair Hoffman thought Co-Chair Stedman was making the
point that the legislature recognized the need for
maintenance and had funded numerous projects over the years
that were subsequently vetoed by whatever sitting governor.
He thought the audience should be aware that the committee
had been working on the issue as a priority.
9:23:16 AM
Senator Kiehl agreed with Co-Chair Stedman and Co-Chair
Hoffman. He wondered whether the slide reflected a pattern.
Mr. Willhoite was not prepared to answer questions
regarding trends due to his short tenure at DEED.
Acting Commissioner Teshner thought districts considered
the time and money associated with putting forth and
application, as well as how much money was appropriated.
She said that in response to many years of limited major
maintenance appropriations, districts would likely not put
in the work and resources to complete an application. She
noted that in FY23, 21 projects were funded with the
appropriation. She stated that applications were directly
correlated to whether projects were being consistently
funded.
Senator Kiehl appreciated the response. He was trying to
determine whether the final appropriation results gave
districts an efficient way to spend the funds.
9:25:32 AM
Senator Bishop wanted to offer background on the history of
major maintenance funding. He noted that at one point the
list had been funded entirely.
Mr. Willhoite was not surprised at what Senator Bishop
described. He reiterated that buildings went into
maintenance phase as soon as they were occupied. He
commented on the ongoing nature of maintenance. He stressed
that there were a lot of costs that went into submitting a
CIP application, many of which were things he thought
districts should be doing regardless, such as meeting with
engineers and designers to provide a scope and cost
estimates for projects. He qualified that limited time and
resources could lead to districts skipping these natural
considerations. He thought the items required by statute
were a way to encourage districts to participate fully in
the application process. He thought the upfront cost was
not entirely dedicated to the application process, but
rather something for the district's sake. H
9:28:45 AM
Mr. Willhoite referenced slide 14, "Appropriations into the
REAA and Small Municipal School District Fund," which
showed a table off fiscal year appropriations by year and
amount. The total over the late 10 years was $443,279,906.
9:29:18 AM
Mr. Willhoite turned to slide 15, "Allocations from the
REAA and Small Municipal School District Fund," which
showed two tables showing new appropriation funds to
projects. The table began in FY14 and ended in FY23, and
included fiscal year, project name, and allocation amount.
9:30:11 AM
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned inadvertent events in Western
Alaska that had caused damage to school buildings. He asked
for a status update on some of those projects.
Mr. Willhoite agreed and deferred the project status update
to Lori Weed.
9:30:56 AM
LORI WEED, SCHOOL FINANCE SPECIALIST, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT,
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about projects at Napakiak and
Kaktovik.
Ms. Weed relayed that the project in Napakiak was fully
funded in the FY23 appropriation.
Co-Chair Hoffman relayed that the reason for the project
was that the school was falling into the Kuskokwim River.
Ms. Weed agreed and noted that the project had created a
new scoring category to accommodate erosion needs and
projects in the state.
Ms. Weed addressed the school in Kaktovik. She detailed
that burned school should be covered under insurance and
eligible schools could be considered under STIP
applications to cover costs.
9:33:05 AM
Co-Chair Olson asked what happened when the insurance money
was distributed was it distributed to the school or the
state. He asked where the insurance proceeds were disbursed
when a school was destroyed by fire.
Ms. Weed explained that the insurance distribution was
dependent upon the ownership of the school. She said that
in all cases the money would go to the district, whether it
be directly or through the state.
Co-Chair Olson asked what happened in the case that a
school burned down and there were not sufficient funds to
rebuild.
Ms. Weed stated that all schools should be fully insured
for replacement costs.
Co-Chair Olson asserted that that was not the case in
Kaktovik because it had been built many years ago.
Ms. Weed suggested that the insurance replacement costs
should increase overtime.
Co-Chair Olson mentioned a more recent fire in Savoonga,
which he thought involved the old school that was used for
teacher housing that had burned down. He asked about the
status of that project.
Ms. Weed replied that she could not speak about the matter.
Mr. Willhoite agreed to get back to the committee with more
information.
Co-Chair Olson understood that the REAA Fund did not cover
teacher housing. He asked what would be done in cases where
schools lacked teachers due to inadequate housing.
Ms. Weed relayed that currently the REAA Program does not
cover any funding for residential buildings.
9:36:08 AM
Co-Chair Olson asked how much resistance there would be in
changing the regulation or statute to allow REAA funding
for teacher housing.
Ms. Weed stated that she did not know.
9:36:29 AM
Co-Chair Olson commented that Chevak was in Senator
Hoffmans district.
Co-Chair Hoffman offered that he had visited the community
recently.
9:36:41 AM
ELWIN BLACKWELL, SCHOOL FINANCE MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, considered slide 16, "
Debt Reimbursement and Eligibility":
1. Debt Reimbursement program is established in AS
14.11.100
2. Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Debt Application
a. May be received at any time the Debt
Reimbursement program is open
b. CIP Application materials are posted on our
website
(https://education.alaska.gov/facilities/faciliti
escip)
3. Project Ranking
a. Projects are not ranked or evaluated for
prioritized need
4. Eligibility
a. All types of Cities, except 3rd Class
b. All types of Boroughs
c. 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
Mr. Blackwell explained that was no need for ranking
projects as projects were funded by municipalities. He
noted that not all cities and boroughs had bonding
capacity. The department required similar documents to be
submitted for debt reimbursement as for a grant
application.
9:39:03 AM
Mr. Blackwell displayed slide 17, "Debt Reimbursement
Trends," which gave a quick overview of reimbursement
rates:
• Percentage of annual Debt Service
o FY1971 FY1977 100 percent
o FY1978 FY1983 90 percent
o FY1984 FY1994 80 percent
o FY1995 FY1999 70 percent
o FY2000 FY2015 70 percent/ 60 percent*
square4 SB64 (Chapter 3 SLA 2015) implemented a
moratorium on additional debt reimbursement
through FY2020
square4 HB106 (Chapter 6 SLA 2020) extended the
moratorium on additional debt reimbursement
through FY2025
o FY2026 FY20xx 50 percent/ 40 percent**
*Northwest Arctic Borough at 90 percent for bonds
between 1990-2006
**Rates shown are reflective of current statute after
the moratorium is lifted
9:41:06 AM
Mr. Blackwell highlighted slide 18, "Debt Reimbursement
Trends," which showed a bar graph of historic debt funding
by reimbursement rate.
Mr. Blackwell looked at slide 19, "Debt Reimbursement
Trends," which showed a bar graph illustrating the state
share of outstanding debt projected from FY 24 to FY 42.
The chart included all bonds that were outstanding and
excluded all authorized but unsold bonds. He noted that
there was an associated document, Handout 2, which
corresponded with the black line on the graph and
represented the state liability portion of the program
(copy on file).
9:42:09 AM
Mr. Blackwell addressed slide 20, " Debt Reimbursement
Trends," which showed a chart illustrating the
appropriated, and eligible amounts that municipalities
should have received from 1976 to present. There had been
years when the program was underfunded, but for the most
part the program had been fully funded for most of its
life. He mentioned periods of time in the 1980s when the
state experienced fiscal difficulties that led to
underfunding. Recently in 2017, 2020, and 2021, the
appropriation was not sufficient to meet the eligible
amount. In 2021, the appropriation was zero after being
vetoed by the governor. He cited that in FY22, under HB
281, money had been received to fully fund 2017, 2020, and
2021. The graph did not show the funding from HB 281. He
noted that the years were made whole after the fact. He
said that FY23 and FY24 were fully funded.
9:44:17 AM
Mr. Blackwell advanced to slide 21, "Debt Proceed and
Refundings":
• Initial Bond Sales
• After bonds are sold, the department identifies
how much of approved projects are funded by the
new bond
• Establish any proration's for bonds based on
approved project reimbursement rate. (AS
14.11.100(a))
• Refunding of Bonds
• Refunding of current bonds must follow the
requirements in AS 14.11.100(j)(2)
• Department evaluates refundings by comparing
the annual debt service of the refunding package
to the original annual debt service of the
bond(s) that are refunded. The refunding must
show an annual savings
Mr. Blackwell said that bond issues were tracked to be sure
the full amount was received. He stated that if a
municipality sold a bond for more than the project the
reimbursement would be prorated to isolate out the school
approved project portion of the bond and the eligibility
rate would be applied. He relayed that there were
requirements in statute pertaining to refunding
stipulations.
9:46:38 AM
Mr. Blackwell looked at slide 22, "Funding Comparison,"
which showed a table of comparing between the REAA/Small
Muni, SC/MM Grant Funds, and Debt Reimbursement. The graph
showed what was allowed in the different types of available
funding mechanisms for capital.
9:47:09 AM
Mr. Blackwell spoke to slide 23, "Additional Handouts and
Resources":
• Supplementary handouts
• FY2024 School Construction Grant Fund List
• FY2024 Major Maintenance Grant Fund List
• DEED's Facilities website:
https://education.alaska.gov/facilities
• School Facility Database
https://education.alaska.gov/doe_rolodex/schoolca
lendar/facility
• Preventive Maintenance & Facility Management
Program
https://education.alaska.gov/facilities/PM
• CIP Application and Support
https://education.alaska.gov/facilities/facilitie
scip
• CIP Grant Priority Lists
https://education.alaska.gov/facilities/facilitie
spl
9:47:57 AM
Acting Commissioner Teshner referenced slide 24, "Mt.
Edgecumbe High School (MEHS) Deferred Maintenance Projects
Currently Funded":
• Freezer/Cooler Building Replacement
• Bleachers, Swimming and Survival Equipment
• Building 295 Heritage Hall Window Upgrades
• Building 290 Kitchen Ventilation Upgrades
• Campus ADA Upgrades
• Campus-wide Restroom Upgrades
• Building 1330 Academic
• Building 1331 Gymnasium
• Building 295 Heritage Hall
• Building 297 Ivy Hall
• Building 299 Access Stairs and Bridge Replacement
• Master Plan Update
Acting Commissioner Teshner shared that Mt. Edgecumbe High
School was part of the department but did not qualify for
school construction or major maintenance and were funded
through deferred maintenance appropriations from the state.
Co-Chair Olson referenced Mt. Edgecumbe and wondered how
capital improvements were funded for the facility.
Acting Commissioner Teshner noted that Handout 7 showed the
needs of the school (copy on file). She said that projects
were identified yearly and then prioritized by the
department and funded through the statewide deferred
maintenance appropriation. She spoke of the third bullet on
the slide and noted that it had been identified as a
priority.
9:50:37 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman relayed that the issue of Mt. Edgecumbe
maintenance funding had been brought to his attention by
colleagues. He thought that the REAA Fund needed to be
modified through the legislative process to allow the
school to qualify. He thought Co-Chair Stedman made a
compelling argument that the school should be eligible for
REAA and major maintenance funding.
Co-Chair Stedman considered the list on slide 24 and
highlighted the second item. He assumed that the bleachers
were for the aquatic center and not the school gymnasium.
Acting Commissioner Teshner answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Stedman argued that the item was not major
maintenance, in fact the bleachers were brand new, funded
by an appropriation the previous year. He said that the
facility had been under construction for a decade and was
finally complete.
Acting Commissioner Teshner relayed that the construction
on the project was fully done. The additional outstanding
items on the slide were not construction projects.
Co-Chair Stedman understood that the bleachers
appropriation was done, and asked whether DEED had the
funds to complete the project for the purpose of installing
the new bleachers.
Acting Commissioner Teshner stated that to her knowledge,
the department had the funds for installation of extras for
the aquatic center.
9:54:10 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether Acting Commissioner Teshner
could provide a financial update on the aquatic center. He
understood that the revenue situation at the facility was
improving, and funds were being generated for operating
expenses.
Acting Commissioner Teshner agreed to provide the committee
with the information.
Co-Chair Stedman expressed that the project had slowed down
funding for other capital needs.
9:55:29 AM
Acting Commissioner Teshner turned to slide 25, "Mt.
Edgecumbe High School (MEHS) Deferred Maintenance Backlog":
• FY2024 Deferred Maintenance Capital Memo (Handout
#7)
• Environmental Cleanup and Renovation of Building
288, Old Firehouse Building estimated at $662.0
• Environmental Cleanup and Demolition of Building
296, Old Paint Shop estimated at $244.0
Acting Commissioner Teshner reminded that the projects on
the slide were detailed on Handout 7 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Stedman expressed concern at the length of time
the facilities had been in poor condition. He reminded that
the facilities were built during World War II and had been
abandoned for decades. He thought unhoused individuals had
occupied the buildings. He mentioned lead paint and various
hazards associated with the structures. He thought the
structures were a health hazard. He recognized that the
project was on the list produced by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (as demonstrated on
Handout 7). He was concerned about item 7 and item 8 on the
list, which were the items reflected on slide 25.
Co-Chair Stedman wanted an update on the land exchange
taking place with the Southeast Alaska Regional Health
Consortium (SEARHC).
9:59:43 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wanted more information as to why the two
land parcels had not been transferred. He was not sure of
the financial terms that were part of the agreement, but
hoped the involved parties were working together to come up
with an arrangement that benefited Mt. Edgecumbe High
School. He thought the hospital was very concerned about
the unsightly buildings being in proximity to the new
facilities.
Co-Chair Stedman looked at item 1 on the handout, which
concerned the dining hall renovation at MEHS. He reminded
the committee that the dormitories were old military
barracks that were constructed near the time of WWII. The
structures were built hastily and inexpensively. He had
concerns about putting money into the old dorms. He wanted
to have a conversation about the school facility itself and
consideration of building new dorms.
Co-Chair Hoffman noted the last item on slide 24, Master
Plan Update.
Co-Chair Stedman hoped that the committee could review the
update once it was available.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked Acting Commissioner Teshner when the
update would be available.
Acting Commissioner Teshner relayed that the department had
almost completed phase one of the master plan update, and
the final should be completed by summer of 2023.
10:03:32 AM
Co-Chair Stedman referenced item 9 on handout 7 and
reiterated his and Senator Olsons concerns about the
number of students per dorm room at MEHS. He stressed that
the bunks had been built in 1980. He believed that the
school needed to be in the system with all other schools
under the departments per view for the legislature to be
privy to maintenance needs.
10:04:31 AM
Co-Chair Olson considered the success rate of the school
and stressed that its environment should be welcoming.
10:05:06 AM
Co-Chair Stedman appreciated the leeway to address MEHS. He
commented on the need for backup generators at the school,
which he thought were a good idea for all schools. He
reminded the committee that the basketball court at MEHS
was used for a variety of community events.
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the department supported the
recommendations of the legislature for funding for MEHS,
even as the OMB director was calling for sacrifices in the
Capital Budget.
Acting Commissioner Teshner relayed that DEED prioritized
MEHS. She stated that the students were under the purview
of the department. She said that the department supported
appropriations for MEHS.
Co-Chair Stedman thought it would be a great idea to have
some members take a tour of the MEHS facilities. He
commented on the success rate of the school in educating
future leaders. He thought it would be nice for the members
to familiarize themselves with the facility.
10:07:55 AM
Senator Merrick asked how many students attended MEHS and
whether they paid for tuition and board.
Acting Commissioner Teshner cited that there were 400
students from 111 communities across the state. Students
paid a student activities fee, which was the only fee that
was paid.
10:08:23 AM
Senator Wilson recalled that he had toured the MEHS campus.
He thought MEHS was an amazing facility. He mentioned
staircase replacement and asbestos abatement. He mentioned
additional costs to families to send students to the
school. He was in support of more funding to upgrade the
school. He mentioned ADA upgrades thought more should be
done for the school, which fell within the state's purview.
Co-Chair Hoffman commented that in the past students had
been willing to leave their communities for the promise of
a better education. He thought MEHS had a waitlist to get
in because of the outstanding reputation of the school.
Co-Chair Stedman spoke of the financial hardships faced by
rural students to attend MEHS. He thought that the state
could step up and help to make the opportunity accessible
to poor and rural students.
10:11:04 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that most of the families with
students at MEHS were not high-income earners. He thought
the committee should work with the department to determine
what needed to be done to potentially fund students
returning home for winter break. He noted that some
students left and could not return to school due to lack of
funds for travel.
10:12:59 AM
Co-Chair Olson asked how many students were in the
situation that Co-Chair Stedman described where they were
unable to pay for travel to return to school.
Acting Commissioner Teshner did not have information on the
issue described. She knew there were other issues that
prevented students from returning. She agreed to follow up
with the committee with the information.
10:13:42 AM
Acting Commissioner Teshner showed slide 26, "Contact
Information":
Heidi Teshner, Acting Commissioner
[email protected]
(907) 465-2875
Joe Willhoite, Facilities Manager
[email protected]
(907) 465-6569
Elwin Blackwell, School Finance Manager
[email protected]
(907) 465-8665
Laurel Shoop, Legislative Liaison
[email protected]
(907) 465-8703
Senator Kiehl thought the department had done a good job
describing a complex system. He considered whether the
school bond debt reimbursement moratorium would eventually
prove problematic if the legislature failed to uphold the
constitutional mandate to maintain public schools.
Additionally, the REAA was funded through a proportion of
what was put into the municipal school's debt
reimbursement, which meant that there had been no cash flow
into the fund during the moratorium. He felt that if the
moratorium continued the gulf between urban and rural
schools would grow. He probed what the state could do, in
terms of school major maintenance, to ensure statewide
equity.
10:17:17 AM
Acting Commissioner Teshner thought Senator Kiehl was
describing a policy question to be determined by the
legislature. She acknowledged that there was funding
appropriated into the REAA fund, but the amount of the fund
was shrinking. She stated that if the moratorium were to
continue the fund would eventually go down to zero. She
said that appropriations from the legislature were applied
how they were given.
Senator Kiehl appreciated that the department led its
presentation with its mission. He thought leadership could
be a joint activity, and that the legislature and the
executive branch could work together to problem solve.
10:19:02 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman said that the REAA fund had been
established by the legislature but that the administration
was free to offer policy suggestions. He said that all
major maintenance policies had so far come from the
legislature, particularly from the Senate Finance
Committee.
10:19:54 AM
Senator Bishop considered the major maintenance list and
felt that schools in both rural and urban areas should be
commended for their maintenance programs that had put forth
the effort to maintain school buildings.
10:21:19 AM
Mr. Willhoite applauded the districts that showed
maintenance as a priority. He considered that the better
the facility was to start, the easier they were to
maintain. He qualified that at times it was better to tear
down buildings and rebuild. He thought it was very
encouraging to hear that there were schools built even in
the 1980s that were doing very well with maintenance. He
did not like sinking good money into bad.
Co-Chair Hoffman thanked the presenters and stressed that
school major maintenance was a high priority for the
committee.
Co-Chair Hoffman discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
10:24:20 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:24 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 020923 DEED Handout #1 - AS 14.11.035 SB237 Final 2022 Report.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 237 |
| 020923 DEED Handout #2 - FY2024 State Share Totals by District 12.09.22.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2023 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 020923 (S)FIN DEED School Capital Funding Final presentation.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2023 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 020923 DEED Handout #3 - Debt Actual % 1976-2024.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2023 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 020923 DEED Handout #4 - FY2024 Anticipated School Debt Reimbursement.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2023 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 020923 DEED Handout #5 - FY24ConstructionFinalList.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2023 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 020923 DEED Handout #6 - FY24MaintenanceFinalList.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2023 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 020923 DEED Handout #7 - MEHS FY2024 Deferred Maintenance Memo.pdf |
SFIN 2/9/2023 9:00:00 AM |