Alaska education funding boost nears vote of full House amid affordability concerns
Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks, speaks Thursday, May 2, 2024, on Senate Bill 129. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
A key House panel unexpectedly advanced a major rewrite of Alaska's per-student funding formula for public schools on Thursday.
Without objection, the House Finance Committee advanced House Bill 69 to a vote of the full House without discussing amendments or hearing public testimony. If HB 69 were to become law, the state would be expected to provide $325 million more next year for public schools, with additional increases in 2027 and 2028.
Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks, made the motion to advance the bill, saying that there's no point in debating it when there's no money to pay for it.
'There is no way that the state can make that type of promise to pay for a service without ending the PFD program and imposing new taxes,' he said afterward, referring to the Permanent Fund dividend.
The bill would phase in the increase over three years, with an estimated $644 million per year in additional public school funding by the 2027-2028 school year, according to figures from the Legislative Finance Division, which analyzes the budget for lawmakers.
Even without that increase, current state revenue and expense forecasts predict a significant deficit in the coming years.
'I don't have the money. I don't see how I can support the bill without having the money. I'm interested to hear what the majority's proposals are to be able to fund the bill, but I will absolutely bite,' Stapp said during Thursday's finance committee meeting. 'I know this is a big priority for you guys. So Mr. Co-Chair, with the permission of the committee, I'm going to go ahead and see if I can move the bill.'
The action came after a brief discussion of HB 69 but before any public testimony, breaking the Legislature's usual precedent.
After the vote, Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, said there are always questions in the Legislature about how to pay for priorities.
'I think in this fiscal year, we're looking at a lot of things with that same question. We always, in the end, make it work right, just to all come together,' he said. 'I always posit the cost of doing nothing — what's that cost?'
Asked how the state intends to pay for HB 69, Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage and co-chair of the House Finance Committee, said he believes it's possible to afford a public school funding increase if the Permanent Fund dividend is cut to $1,000 and if legislators pass some small tax bills, like one proposed by Sen. Robert Yundt, R-Wasilla.
Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, I-Sitka and the author of HB 69, said school districts have been asked for years to balance their books despite inflation and no increases in funding from the state.
'We have some hard decisions to make,' she said when asked how the state would pay for her bill. 'We have a more flexible budget than school districts have. We also have the ability to raise money. So collectively, we have hard decisions. But we can't lose sight of the fact that we owe our children the best education they can get, in our constitution.'
Over the last several weeks, the House Education Committee has heard emotional testimony from students and school officials grappling with budget shortfalls and school closures around the state, and urging a boost to school funding.
The Alaska House is closely divided between a 19-member Republican minority, including Stapp, and a 21-member multipartisan majority that includes two Republicans, five independents and 14 Democrats.
Changes to the state's public school funding formula have been the No. 1 priority of the majority since its creation after last year's elections.
On Wednesday, members of the Republican minority caucus voted against sending HB 69 to the finance committee via a procedural motion. At the time, they said more discussion was needed and that members of the House majority were acting too hastily.
'I wish we'd had some more debate about the merits of the bill and expectations and outcomes. That was my only concern. We didn't have more opportunity to talk about expectations and outcomes of such a bill passing, and that really didn't happen,' said Rep. Rebecca Schwanke, R-Glennallen.
Twenty-four hours later, it was the minority's turn to act quickly as Stapp urged the bill forward.
He said afterward that the proposal is so unrealistic that it's not worth talking about.
'I honestly don't know how this bill is even remotely going to be funded, because no tax proposals have been coming out by the folks who want to pay for the bill,' he said. 'So I'm interested to see how they're going to tell the voters of the state and really the educators and the teachers, how they're going to fund it. They didn't do that on the committee.'
Rep. Jeremy Bynum, R-Ketchikan and a member of the finance committee, said he was surprised by Stapp's move, but he wanted to see policy changes, and at the end of the day, HB 69 was about funding, not policy.
Members of the minority could have fought the majority in an attempt to include policy items, but 'it's better to send it over to the Senate, and they can fix it,' Bynum said.
Shortly before Stapp's action, Gov. Mike Dunleavy said on social media that he does not support the bill in its present form but does support separate, ongoing negotiations between his office and members of the Legislature.
'This fast-track standalone bill does not have my support. The education negotiations between the two bodies and my office do,' he said.
Josephson voiced support during the committee meeting for those ongoing negotiations,
'so that we can get to a yes, and it's a win-win,' he said.
Scheduling the bill for a floor vote will be in the hands of Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak and chair of the House Rules Committee.
Twenty-one votes are needed to pass a bill in the House, and the House majority has 21 members, but Rep. Maxine Dibert, D-Fairbanks, has been hospitalized with a respiratory illness and has not been cleared for a return to work.
Outside her office on Thursday afternoon, reporters asked Stutes whether she could say when it will come up for a vote.
'No, no,' she said — then walked away. Later, she provided a written statement.
'I'm happy to see House Bill 69 pass the House Finance Committee. Education funding is a critical issue to Alaskans, the House Majority Coalition, and educators across the state. It is a priority to get this legislation on the House floor,' she said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dominion Post
38 minutes ago
- Dominion Post
City creating second safe surrender site, cutting taxes for some small businesses
MORGANTOWN — The city of Morgantown is taking advantage of a recent change in state code to create the city's second safe surrender site. Safe surrender sites are designated locations at which newborns up to 30 days old can be dropped off while maintaining the anonymity of the person surrendering the child. In April 2024, Morgantown opened West Virginia's second Safe Haven Baby Box at the Norwood Fire Station. Earlier this year, the West Virginia Legislature expanded the allowable surrender sites beyond fire departments to include police departments, sheriff's departments and EMS facilities. In response, the city of Morgantown is looking to add the Morgantown Public Safety Building – home of the Morgantown Police Department – as a designated site. Unlike the Norwood setup, which includes dedicated infrastructure known as a 'baby box,' built directly into the fire station, a baby dropped at the Public Safety Building will be handed to a police officer. 'The police department, who is there 24-7, feel comfortable that they would be able to have policy and procedures to follow state code and be able to accept an infant less than 30 days old and get it to the nearest hospital facility,' Assistant City Manager Emily Muzzarelli said. 'It likely would go to the police supervisor … but it still requires the same anonymity. The person does not have to give their name or any information should they not want to.' Morgantown City Council recently passed the first reading of an ordinance creating a new section of code pertaining to the safe surrender sites. Safe surrender guidelines were previously under the city's fire code as fire stations were the only allowable locations under the law as it was passed by the West Virginia Legislature in 2023. In other business, council has passed on first reading amendments to the city's business license and business and occupation tax provisions. During its most recent session, the Legislature passed House Bill 2451, which eliminates the need for municipal business licensure as well as business and occupation tax liability for some businesses. City Attorney Ryan Simonton explained that in order to be eligible for the business license exemption, a business must be a sole proprietorship or independent contractor; cannot have a permanent physical location within the city; and must generate annual revenue below $2,500. In order to be exempt from business and occupation tax liability, a business must generate gross annual revenue below $2,500. Business and occupation taxes – or B&O taxes – are taxes charged by municipalities on business activity within the city. 'If they have $2,501 in revenue, they do have to pay taxes on that full amount,' he said. If adopted upon second reading on June 17, the changes will take effect at the July 1 start of the new fiscal year.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Ford is navigating rare earth mineral supply chain disruptions, tariffs and more
Ford Motor Co.'s chief financial officer outlined how tariffs and supply chain disruptions are expected to impact Ford's vehicle production and its costs during a wide-reaching interview with a Wall Street analyst June 4. Ford CFO Sherry House said the Dearborn, Michigan-based carmaker will provide more details on the economic impact from President Donald Trump's tariffs and other policy changes in its second-quarter earnings next month. But she cautioned there are still many unknowns being sorted out, all of which could make Ford's upcoming financials "a bit lumpy," she said. "As we move into the next couple of weeks to prepare for the quarter, if we give guidance it will be in the caveats of what we can't define," House said. "If we don't, we're going to give you every piece of information that we feel we can to help you, other analysts and investors to understand the business as much as possible.' Here are the top takeaways from House's fireside chat with analyst Joe Spak at the UBS Auto and Auto Tech Conference in New York on June 4: House said Ford has seen some backlogs to getting rare earth minerals into the supply chain, so Spak asked how that could impact vehicle production. 'There are many components that rare earth minerals are in and many of those that are coming from China require you to now go through export controls, so there's an additional layer of administrative process that has to happen," House said. She said sometimes the components pass through smoothly, other times there are holdups and that's when Ford has to take action to mitigate any disruptions. "You have to look for alternative parts or alternative ways to get things," House said. "Frequently, it goes through, it just may take more time. So then you might be facing expedited shipment costs that you weren't anticipating and it just puts stress on a system that's highly organized with parts being ordered many weeks in advance." She said Ford has been managing the issue so far, but warned, "I don't know if at some point this is going to be a larger issue for us?" In case you missed it: Ford recall could force over 1 million drivers to use this safety technique As for Trump's latest tariff: a boost in steel and aluminum to 50%, House said the impact on Ford should be minimal because Ford buys all its aluminum from domestic suppliers and it buys 80% of steel from U.S. sources. Ford will manage any price increases in steel through "contract pricing," meaning prices have already been set. "So when all of this hits, there is a delayed impact," she said. On April 29, Trump signed an executive order that set up a complicated system of federal reimbursements on certain imports of auto parts and components for the next two years used in vehicles made in the United States. The order gives Detroit's automakers some relief from what Trump earlier had ordered — 25% tariffs on all imported autos which began in April and another 25% on all imported auto parts set to begin by May 3. Spak asked House how Ford is getting the federal reimbursements for the parts that are compliant with the United States Mexico Canada Agreement as outlined in the order Trump signed at the end of April. She said a lot of that is still being defined. "I don't completely know," House said. "So you're paying the tariffs now. I think it's very possible that there will be a delay in getting those offset. I'm talking about the parts offset. It could be by a quarter, it could be by a couple of quarters. But all of you who are looking at our financials in Q2, Q3 and Q4, are going to have to know that it's going to be a bit lumpy. You might have more expense before you actually get the money reimbursed.' The good news for Ford is 80% of the parts used on its vehicles are USMCA-compliant and 80% of the vehicles it sells in the United States are built here. Still, the automaker warned during its first-quarter earnings report that tariffs will add $1.5 billion in net costs this year. For the 20% of suppliers who import parts, House said Ford is having conversations with them, seeking ways to help mitigate Ford's exposure to tariffs and lower those costs, while also meeting the business obligations of its suppliers. 'As we face the tariff situation, we face it together," House said of Ford's suppliers. "The types of conversations we are having are around: Do you have additional capacity in the U.S.? Could you move to the U.S.? What types of investments might help you get there?' But she explained that it is "a very complex and nuanced situation" with the supply base as to which suppliers to press for changes. Ford considers the kinds of quality, cost, technology and performance a supplier has provided in the past as to how it works with them around the tariffs, she said. 'But on an individual basis we're decided whether or not it makes sense to make some of these changes," House said. "I don't have anything to announce with you right now, but, of course, you would look at some of your higher priced components first, items that affect more vehicles, that would be the order of operations.' House did not address a May 25 report in the Wall Street Journal that cited sources as saying Ford would share production space in its battery plant in Kentucky with rival Nissan. The move signals Ford's retrenchment from electric vehicle investments and it helps the Japanese automaker reduce its exposure to tariffs on imported vehicles and parts. But House did say given the "very competitive global landscape" with companies having different needs and levels of technology, it makes sense to be thinking about partnerships so as to get more efficiency, especially if it is an area where Ford does not need to be No. 1. She said the automaker is "absolutely open" to doing more partnerships than the ones it currently has in place. House joined Ford about a year ago and became its CFO in recent months. When asked how she has seen the company change culturally, she listed a few ways: First, Ford has started to put more specialists in roles as opposed to putting a really great generalist in roles. For example, when it named Liz Door as its chief supply chain officer in 2023. House called her "an amazing supply chain leader at the forefront of that thinking." House said she has challenged Ford to think about "not letting your governance define what the pace of the business is going to be." "What happens is big companies … you have weekly meetings on a topic, you have monthly meetings on topic, you have quarterly meetings on a topic. What happens when you set up your business that way is you are running to that governance structure and you're only doing the work to get ready for that weekly meeting or monthly meeting," House said. "But if you can step back and let the priorities define the pace versus the governance structure, the business define the pace, I think you can go a lot faster and you can make sure you're focused on the right things.' She said Ford also has looked to "break boundary constraints" in its strategy meetings. "If you're having meetings with just one function, a lot of times you can't break the boundary constraints because you don't have everybody in the room that can tell you can do something. So you feel like you can't," House said. "So having more cross functional meetings as well. These are all tactics that can make a difference." Jamie L. LaReau is the senior autos writer who covers Ford Motor Co. for the Detroit Free Press. Contact Jamie at jlareau@ Follow her on Twitter @jlareauan. To sign up for our autos newsletter. Become a subscriber. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Ford CFO outlines how company is working through supply, tariff issues
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NCAA's House settlement approved, ushering in new era where schools can directly pay athletes
College athletics is officially entering a new world. A California judge on Friday granted approval to the NCAA's landmark settlement of three antitrust cases, often referred to as the 'House settlement,' ushering in an era where schools are permitted to share revenue with athletes within a new enforcement structure led by the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC. Advertisement Claudia Wilken, the 75-year-old presiding judge in California's Northern District, granted approval of an agreement between the named defendants (the NCAA and power conferences) and the plaintiffs (dozens of suing athletes) to settle three consolidated cases, all of them seeking more compensation for athletes. Unsuccessful in so many legal battles recently — most notably a 9-0 loss in a 2021 Supreme Court decision — the NCAA and its richest, most influential conferences decided last spring to strike a revolutionary agreement by settling these cases instead of risking a court defeat that might cost them as much as $10 billion. The House settlement will pay thousands of former athletes — playing from 2016-2024 — a whopping $2.8 billion in backpay from lost name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation. Even more groundbreaking, the settlement paves the way for schools, for the first time ever, to directly compensate athletes in a system that features an annual cap and a new enforcement entity that is expected to more heavily scrutinize booster-backed payments. While paychecks can begin to be distributed from schools to athletes on July 1 — the official start date of settlement implementation — the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission, an LLC operated mostly by the power leagues, immediately takes effect with Wilken's approval of the agreement. Advertisement It means that any new contract struck between an athlete and a third-party entity, such a business, brand, booster or collective, is now subject to the new Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse. The clearinghouse, dubbed "NIL Go," is charged with evaluating NIL deals between athletes and third parties to determine their legitimacy. It puts an end, perhaps, to schools hurriedly signing current players and transfers to new contracts before the approval of the settlement in deals that frontload a majority of the compensation. Contracts signed before the settlement approval and paid out before July 1 were not subject to the clearinghouse or cap, leading to a 'mad dash' in the basketball and football portal. Power conference leaders are targeting a Major League Baseball executive to manage the College Sports Commission as CEO, multiple sources tell Yahoo Sports. Bryan Seeley, a former assistant U.S. attorney who has served for more than a decade as MLB's vice president of investigations and deputy general counsel, is believed to be the preferred candidate for the CEO role of college sports' new enforcement entity. Despite plenty of hurdles in the settlement's years-long approval process, those who negotiated the deal have long expected it to be approved because of the sheer numbers involved. More than 85,000 athletes have filed claims for the backpay and just 600 have opted out or objected to the agreement — a paltry number that did not phase the judge. Advertisement Wliken's decision, coming XX days after the final hearing in Oakland, California, puts an end to what was thought to be one of the last looming hurdles of a deal: roster limits. In a concept authored by the power conferences, the settlement imposes new limits on sports rosters, many of which had not previously existed. In a recent filing, the NCAA and power leagues agreed to revise settlement language to permit schools to grandfather-in athletes on existing teams or those who have been cut this year, as well as recruits who enrolled on the promise of a roster spot. College sports is about to enter a whole new era. (Taylor Wilhelm/Yahoo Sports) With its approval, the settlement ushers into college sports a more professionalized framework but one, many believe, that is ripe for more legal scrutiny. Already, attorneys are gearing up for future legal challenges over, at the very least, the new NIL clearinghouse, Title IX and the capped compensation system — much of which can be resolved, legal experts contend, with a collective bargaining and/or employment model that college executives have so far avoided. Advertisement The settlement's approval is only the first in what many college leaders describe as a two-step process to usher in stability in the college sports landscape. Step 2 may be even more difficult: lawmakers producing a congressional bill to codify the settlement terms and protect the NCAA and power conferences from legal challenges over enforcement of their rules. Five U.S. senators have been meeting regularly in serious negotiations over legislation, but no agreement has been reached. Here's an explainer of college sports' new world delivered by the settlement's approval: Revenue-share pool Each school is permitted — not required — to share up to a certain amount of revenue annually with their athletes (the cap). Per the settlement agreement, the cap is calculated by taking 22% of the average of certain power school revenues, most notably ticket sales, television dollars and sponsorships. Advertisement In Year 1 — July 2025 through June 2026 — the cap amount is projected to be $20.5 million. While each school is charged with determining how to distribute those funds, most power conference programs are planning to distribute 90% to football and men's basketball, as those are, for the most part, the only revenue-generating sports for an athletic department. In Year 1, that's about $13-16 million for a football roster and $2-4 million for men's basketball, with the remaining amount shared with women's basketball, baseball, volleyball and other Olympic sports. While the 22% cap will remain the same through the 10-year settlement agreement, the cap money figure will rise based on built-in escalators (4% increase in Year 2 and Year 3), scheduled recalculations (after each third year) and additional cash flows into athletic departments, such as when conferences enter into new, more lucrative television deals or/and begin receiving new College Football Playoff monies. Advertisement Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork told Yahoo Sports this summer that he expects the cap to break $25 million by the time the Year 4 recalculation happens. There are exceptions, though, that can artificially lower the annual cap, most notably up to $2.5 million in additional scholarships that a school offers. Enforcement entity A new non-NCAA enforcement entity — an LLC predominantly managed by the power conferences — will oversee and enforce rules related to the revenue-share concept. The company, College Sports Commission, is expected to be headed by a CEO as well as a head investigator for enforcement matters. The entity is charged with assuring that schools remain under the cap and that third-party NIL deals with athletes are not the phony booster-backed deals so prevalent over the last four years. Advertisement An enforcement staff is expected to be hired to investigate and enforce rules related to cap circumvention, tampering, etc., and are charged with levying stiff penalties. Violators may be subject to multi-game coach suspensions, reductions in a school's rev-share pool as well as reductions in allowed transfers, and significant schools fines. However, the biggest looming uncertainty of the settlement agreement involves a Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse that must approve all third-party NIL deals of at least $600 in value. The "NIL Go" clearinghouse is using a fair market value algorithm to create 'compensation ranges' for third-party deals. Deloitte is expected to approve or disapprove deals in as little as one day, and athletes can resubmit rejected deals at least once with alterations suggested by the clearinghouse. For example, Deloitte deems a submitted $100,000 deal between an athlete and third party to actually be valued at $50,000. The player can alter the deal to align with the clearinghouse's suggested figure or the school can cover the difference by accepting a reduction against their revenue-pool cap. Deals rejected for a second time are referred to the CEO and enforcement staff and are then processed through an appeals system via court-overseen arbitration. Arbitration rulings are expected within 45 days, according to the settlement. Advertisement Athletes who lose arbitration cases and still accept compensation in the rejected deal are deemed ineligible. Rev-share contracts Starting with the fall basketball and football signing periods, schools began readying for this new era. Some even signed players to revenue-sharing agreements that begin to make payments on July 1 or later, contingent on the settlement's approval. Other players signed contracts with school booster collectives that featured a clause assigning the contract to the school on July 1. For the most part, the contracts grant schools permission to use a player's NIL rights — a reason for the compensation — but these agreements feature language often found in employment contracts, including buyouts, athlete requirements and prohibitions as well as the freedom for schools to reduce the players' compensation based on their academic standing and performance. Advertisement Already, the agreements are a subject of legal scrutiny. In January, Wisconsin defensive back Xavier Lucas left the university to enroll at Miami despite signing a revenue-share contract with UW. In public statements, Wisconsin has suggested it will pursue legal action against Lucas and/or Miami, which, it suggested, tampered with an athlete under contract. Lucas' representatives believe the contract is not enforceable as it was contingent on settlement approval when signed. The situation is a potential landmark case on settlement-contingent revenue-sharing agreements.
