HB 102-RESIDENTIAL PSYCH CTR; EDUC. STDRS/FUNDS  8:50:47 AM [CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act relating to workers' compensation and transportation network companies; and providing for an effective date."] [Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on 2/1/16, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 102, Version 29-LS0519\S, Glover, 2/10/16.] REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 102, version 29-LS0519\Y, Glover, 3/17/16, as the working document. Without objection, Version Y was before the committee. 8:54:53 AM JANET OGAN, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State Legislature, directed attention to the proposed CS, page 2, line 18, to paraphrase the language, which read: (a) A school district may enter into a contract to provide payments to a residential psychiatric treatment center that provides an educational program for a student admitted to the center. If a school district and a residential psychiatric treatment center are unable to agree on a proposed contract on or before January 1 immediately preceding the first school year for which the residential psychiatric treatment center is seeking funding, the school board where a student who is admitted to the center is enrolled shall enter into a contract with the center as provided in (b) of this section. MS. OGAN pointed out that the "shall" contained in the first line of this subsection, was changed to "may" and the initial date of "April 1" is now "January 1" to reflect a previously adopted amendment. The final change alters the sunset date, she said, which was "2019" and is now proposed as "2020". 8:57:50 AM The committee took an at-ease from 8:57 a.m. to 9:02 a.m. 9:02:04 AM CHAIR KELLER announced that public testimony was previously closed and stated intent to maintain that status. 9:02:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned to the language change, page 2, line 18, the term "shall" now proposed as "may". He directed attention to the subsequent line 24 that was not changed to the permissive term, but maintains the directive "shall". Given the scenario of a Kenai student attending the North Star facility in Anchorage, he questioned how funds would be directed and the contract requirements that apply. 9:04:33 AM CHAIR KELLER paraphrased from page 2, lines [18-19] to emphasize the intent. He said, "A district may enter into a contract to provide payments to residential psychiatric treatment centers." A conditional statement is provided, he said, and continued paraphrasing: If a district and a [residential psychiatric treatment center] are unable to agree on a proposed contract on or before [January 1], then it becomes a mandate. CHAIR KELLER maintained that this language makes it very clear. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, continuing to clarify, said: On line 23, '... the school board where a student who is admitted to the center is enrolled ...' ... This is saying that whatever school board ... a student is enrolled in will enter a contract with the [residential psychiatric treatment center], not the Anchorage school district. CHAIR KELLER concurred. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District (KPBSD) letter, from Superintendent Sean Dusek, dated 3/11/16, to the member, which lists a number of concerns. He paraphrased the bullet points, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: The funding proration is ambiguous regarding the funding types to be included in the calculation, 9i.e. does this formula include local contribution, grant funding, the BSA, and intensive needs funding?). There are no measures in place to hold residential facilities accountable for providing a quality education. There is no oversight to hold residential facilities accountable for implementing special education and special education legal paperwork. There is no proof that residential facilities will adequately coordinate educational activities with school districts and provide an education that is aligned with local schools in a manner that is better than what is currently offered. This bill will create financial uncertainty for school districts due to an inability to predictably budget for these students. This plan may open the door for out of state residential facilities to charge significant amounts of money to local school districts for students at their facilities. CHAIR KELLER said an amendment would be welcomed, and pointed out that funding is not stipulated in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the bill includes the local contribution of the base student allocation (BSA) intensive needs, and conjectured that perhaps the intent is for a combination of all three funding sources. 9:09:13 AM DR. SUSAN MCCAULLY, PhD, Interim Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Development, said the current Version Y does not appear to specify the funding mechanism. Because it's not prescriptive, negotiations would need to be entered into to make payment determinations. She directed attention to page 2, line 26, which read: (b) A school board shall enter into a contract to provide payments to a residential psychiatric treatment center that provides an educational program for a student ... 9:10:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON maintained interest in understanding the source of the funding that will be used to support a student, and satisfy the concerns raised in the cited KPBSD letter, especially regarding local and state funding contributions. Additionally, the letter indicates that a door may be opened to Outside contractors, and the bill doesn't appear to limit treatment to in-state facilities. A question, he said, that needs to be answered. 9:11:37 AM CHAIR KELLER pointed out that nothing in charter school statute specifies what is local versus state contribution, and said the North Star center is not unlike a charter school. 9:11:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said ASD has requested an opinion regarding state educational funds being directed to a private facility, and drew attention to the committee packet and the Legal Services memorandum, from Jean M. Mischel, dated 3/17/16, addressing the subject: Constitutionality of CSHB 102 (EDC) (Work Order No. 29-LS0519\S). 9:12:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated opposition to the bill, and said it appears to have been created in response to a situation specific to ASD. She expressed interest in hearing further from ASD regarding strides and inroads that have been handled locally, and perhaps avoid the need to enter the statutory process. 9:15:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to the committee packet, and the three page ASD letter, from Superintendent Ed Graff, dated 3/17/16, which describes the extensive changes that have been implemented in an effort to remedy the situation, since HB 102 was first introduced [February 2015]. 9:16:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt an amendment he called "Y.1," [labeled 29-LS0519\S.5, Glover 3/16/16], on behalf of Representative Colver, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 28, following "district": Insert "during the student count period described under AS 14.17.600" CHAIR KELLER objected for discussion. 9:16:48 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:16 a.m. to 9:24 a.m. 9:24:16 AM CHAIR KELLER invited Representative Seaton to move an amendment that aligned with Version Y. [The previous motion to adopt Amendment "Y.1" was treated as withdrawn]. 9:25:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, page 3, line 3, as follows: Page 3, line 3, following "district": Insert "during the student count period described under AS 14.17.600" CHAIR KELLER objected for discussion. 9:26:01 AM CHAIR KELLER removed his objection, without further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 9:26:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ commented on the defining dates that HB 102 has been heard in committee, since the session began in 2015, and pointed out that it may be disingenuous for districts to begin weighing in at this late date. Extensive testimony has been heard and the onsite visits to the North Star facility, by committee members, occurred during the interim. She opined that the basic educational requirements, of the students who require this type of facility, have been seriously neglected. 9:28:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report CS for HB 102, 29- LS0519\Y, Glover 3/16/16, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 9:28:39 AM CHAIR KELLER objected for discussion. 9:28:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ expressed additional concern for the neglect of the vulnerable students being served, that this bill addresses. A seamless situation needs to be available for this at-risk population, she stressed. 9:31:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ agreed with the at-risk population, and recalled testimony received in committee from parents. However, placing statute on the books that may not be necessary is also a concern. Creating a statewide remedy to what appears to be a local problem may be using a sledge hammer when a scalpel is required, she opined. 9:34:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the bill has undergone a number of changes, and pointed out the recent comments received from ASD, along with the legal opinion, both contained in the committee packet. The changes in the bill appear to define the facility as a school, and the legal opinion states that it will be unconstitutional for educational dollars to be directed in that manner. The thrust has gone beyond working cooperatively with a treatment facility, and now describes that facility as a school. Additionally, ASD indicates that the issues are being addressed, negating the need for legislation. 9:37:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO referred to the bill [Section 1, page 2, lines 2-4], which read as follows: (3) in some instances, a residential psychiatric treatment center is able to provide more effective educational and treatment services to an admitted student than a school district can provide to the student; REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said it appears that the students are being sidelined during a power play of administrators exerting a tug of war. He said the bill appears to be moving in the right direction in keeping the students as the priority. 9:40:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND expressed appreciation for an instate facility, however, local school boards may be negatively impacted by passage of the bill. 9:42:22 AM CHAIR KELLER interjected that the bill will not define the treatment center as a school. 9:43:57 AM CHAIR KELLER removed his objection and, without further objection, ordered CSHB 102(EDC), as reported from the House Education Standing Committee. 9:44:07 AM The committee took an at-ease from 9:44 a.m. to 9:46 a.m.