SELECT FILE
LB 1175 (1998)
April 6, 1998
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. LB
1175.
CLERK: Madam
President, 1175, Senator Bruning, first item Enrollment and Review amendments,
Senator.
15828
April 6, 1998
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Senator Bruning.
SENATOR BRUNING:
Madam President, I move we adopt the E & R amendments for LB 1175.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Is there any discussion?
Seeing none, the question before you is the adoption of the E & R
amendments to LB 1175. All those
in favor say aye. All those
opposed nay. The E & R
amendments are adopted.
MARCH 26,1998 1473
SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS
Enrollment and Review
LEGISLATIVE BILL 1175. Placed on Select File as amended. (E
& R amendment, AM7236, may be found in the Bill Books. The amendment has
been printed separately and is on file in the Bill Room - Room 1102.)
CLERK: Senator
Schimek would move to amend the bill.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Chair recognizes Senator Schimek.
SENATOR SCHIMEK:
Yes, Madam President. I
would like to withdraw that amendment, please.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
The amendment is withdrawn.
CLERK: Senator
Wickersham, AM4207, Senator. (See
page 1548 of the Legislative Journal.)
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Chair recognizes Senator Wickersham, to open on his amendment.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM:
Thank you, Madam President.
This amendment is both complicated and very simple. I’ve attempted to explain it to Senator
Raikes once or twice, and wasn’t very successful. I hope I am more successful in explaining it to you. It is in fact simple. The way it works, if I had... if I describe that in complete detail,
is a little bit complicated. It is
the continuation or an improvement or an enhancement or a clarification,
practically any of those kinds of adjectives that you might want to use, to the
policy that we adopted in LB 806 last year concerning the methodology that we
were going to use to calculate state aid to K-12 education. In LB 806 we provided a process where
the Fiscal Office was supposed to estimate the amount of aid and then to
deliver that number to the Appropriations Committee. It has proven difficult to do that and, in fact, the fiscal
analysts, as I understand it, are very uncomfortable with the process because
it looks like they’re suggesting the appropriate amount to fund the program at
when,
15829
April 6, 1998
in fact, the parameters to determine the appropriate level
of funding aren’t there to give them the complete kind of guidance that they
would like. Now that isn’t, of course
the only reason for doing this kind of an amendment, but I do think that we
need to understand that we have a little bit of an internal problem certifying
the appropriate amount of money to the school fund. The amendment is designed to remove that uncertainty. That’s it, plain and simple. There is after, if this amendment is
adopted, a clear, direct process formula for calculating the amount of money
that should be appropriated to fund TEEOSA. That’s what the amendment is about. Now, the way it does that is
essentially to set a rate, and you will see it in paragraph 3, and it is .9097
times the maximum levy stated in subdivision (2)(a) of 77-3442. What on earth is that? That is the maximum levy that we
adopted under the 1114 limitations:
currently a $1.10; a couple of years will be a dollar. Why is it .9097 times? Because we don’t calculate for purposes
of state aid based on assessed evaluation. We calculate for purposes of state aid based on something
called adjusted valuations and adjusted valuations are higher than assessed
evaluations, perhaps seven or eight percent higher. So you need to state a number that is below one for purposes
of this calculation. Sections 1
and 2 carry that theme through to the lop off calculations and the minimum effort
calculations. And again the
numbers are calculated in a fashion that is neutral for what we are doing now
but we are expressing them as a clear, direct number so that we can make the
necessary calculations. Sections 5
and 6 of the amendment are those that give a directive to the Legislature. It is existing language to a large
extent. There is currently
statutory language to direct the Legislature to appropriate monies to
TEEOSA. There is also language in
the current statutes that directs the Governor to include in his or her budget
recommendations to the Legislature an appropriate amount to fund TEEOSA. Again, from my perspective, what this
amendment does is give our Fiscal, really gives to the Department of Education
... this moves it out of our
Fiscal Office, the Department of Education certifies the amount and then that
is the amount that we would appropriate to fund TEEOSA. But it is a clear, direct formula
process, no estimations, simply the numbers that you run to arrive at the
amount to fund TEEOSA from a year-to-year basis. I’d be happy to try to respond to questions, if there are
any, and hopefully
15830
April 6, 1998
be able to make those responses clear and
understandable. it is... it’s an area that’s a little bit
complex because of the interplay between adjusted valuations and assessed
valuations and the necessity to set the fractions at the levels that are stated
in the amendment. But, again, it’s
intended to provide a very clear, very direct methodology for determining the
amount that is appropriate to fund TEEOSA.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Wickersham.
Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR B0HLKE:
Yes, Madam President and members, I stand in support of the Wickersham
amendment and I believe that I was a cointroducer of the bill as it appeared
before the Education Committee. I
think what Senator Wickersham has said is very important and the realization
that this brings a much improved system to determine the amount of funds
necessary to fund TEEOSA. He, I
think, aptly described to you how we currently do it and at sometimes I think
those recommendations from the Governor actually didn’t even come forward. And so it’s something that we have
looked at in the past. I think
with the formula presented by Senator Wickersham it does give us that certain
exactness that certainly is an improvement in the determination of the amount
of funds necessary and I strongly support the Wickersham amendment to LB 1175.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Bohlke.
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN:
Madam President and members of the Legislature, if Senator Wickersham
would yield to a couple of questions.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Senator Wickersham.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM:
Yes.
SENATOR BROWN:
This is the amount that we will then automatically put into the TEEOSA
amount for state aid.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM:
That’s correct.
SENATOR BROWN:
Okay. And do we have any
idea, is there going to be a difference between...
15831
April 6, 1998
SENATOR WICKERSHAM:
Okay.
SENATOR BROWN:
... your amount and the way
that it is currently?
SENATOR WICKERSHAM:
It’s not calculated to be a different amount, Senator, but you know that
the formula is very complex and the amount that would be certified for next
year is going to be different anyway.
SENATOR BROWN:
Right.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM:
No, I’m not attempting to increase funding. It’s true that I did introduce a bill that had this formula
in it that would in fact have increased funding and increased funding fairly
significantly. It is not our
expectation that this actually increases the level of funding that we would
receive under the current estimating process.
SENATOR BROWN:
Okay.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM:
I can’t tell you that that’s a hundred percent accurate, but that’s my
intention, Senator, and I hope that we’ve done that.
SENATOR BROWN:
Okay. Thank you.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Brown.
Seeing no further lights, Senator Wickersham to close. Closing?
SENATOR WICKERSHAM:
Thank you, Madam President.
I appreciated the questions.
I was advised by Counsel that there is a slight modification in the lop
off and the minimum effort rate.
Those do come down just a little bit but we actually calculated the
different number. Senator Brown, I
don’t want to make you nervous. We
still think the other number is correct, the .0997, that that doesn’t work to
effectively increase funding, but again I’ll express some uncertainty about
that because the formula is very complex, valuations changes, adjusted
valuations change, needs change, I can’t tell you exactly. I think that this has merit because it
is a clear and direct way to determine a number to certify and to appropriate
for TEEOSA. With that,
15832
April 6, 1998
I’d appreciate your support for the amendment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Wickersham.
Question before the body is the adoption of the Wickersham amendment to
LB 1175. All those in favor vote
aye; all those opposed vote nay.
Please record.
ASSISTANT CLERK:
25 ayes, 0 nays on the adoption of Senator Wickersham’s amendment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
The Wickersham amendment is adopted. Next amendment, Mr. Clerk.
ASSISTANT CLERK:
Next amendment is offered by Senator Wickersham. I have AM4035, Senator.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Senator Wickersham.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM:
Madam President, I apologize for not advising the Clerk, but I would ask
that that be withdrawn and refiled at the bottom of the list.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
It will be moved to the bottom of the list, Senator.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM:
Thank you.
ASSISTANT CLERK:
The next amendment is from Senator Schrock. This is AM4221, but I have a note that he wishes to withdraw
and substitute 4309.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Is that correct, Senator?
Is there any objection?
Hearing none, it is so ordered.
Senator Schrock, you may open on your amendment. (AM4309 is found on page 1587 of the
Legislative Journal.)
SENATOR SCHROCK:
Madam President, members of the Legislature, my staff and I worked with
Senator Bohlke’s staff and with the state Department of Education. Like to thank Senator Bohlke and Tammy
Barry and Connie Knoche and Roger Hudson.
What this amendment says is that a K-12 school district that does not
provide high school classes shall not consider to be...shall not
15833
April 6, 1998
be considered to have an attendance center as it pertains
to sparsity for an adjacent school district. For schools adjacent to such a district, this means these
schools will not have to contend with a school that is not holding classes in
its attendance center for its high school students in determining sparsity for
state aid. To the best of our
knowledge, this is happening only in one place in the state. It has potential, of course, to happen
in the future in other places. But
this amendment allows a school district to become sparse if there is not a high
school attendance center within 15 miles if it otherwise qualifies and meets
all the other standards of sparsity.
With that, I will ask for your consideration of this amendment. And if you have any questions, I’d be
glad to respond.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator. Senator
Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Madam President, members.
I support the Schrock amendment to LB 1175. This is one that we have worked on in trying to determine
what would be the fairest way to look at what’s happening when a school
district no longer has high school students. That then only seems fair that that school district should
not be able to prevent a neighboring district from being considered sparse. With this amendment, we do not allow
that school district to prevent the neighboring school district from becoming
sparse. And it I think is an
improvement; looks directly at a situation that is here today but there may be
in the future other situations very similar as school districts with high
schools may make choices about where to send their students and actually not
have a high school attendance center.
And so, although it applies to one area that we know of today, I think
it’s ... the amendment helps us
look at a situation that we could be addressing in the future. So with that, I support AM4309.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Bohlke.
Seeing no further lights, Senator Schrock, to close. Closing is waived. The question before you is the adoption
of the Schrock amendment to LB 1175.
All those in favor vote aye; all those opposed vote nay. Have you all voted? Senator Schrock.
SENATOR SCHROCK:
Madam President, it would be reluctant, I’d be
15834
April 6, 1998
reluctant to do this, but unless we can get a few more
people here I would imagine I’d have to have a call of the house, which I
request a call of the house.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
There’s been a request for a call of the house. All those in favor vote aye; all those
opposed vote nay. Senator, do you
accept call-in votes?
SENATOR SCHROCK:
Yes, I do.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Please record.
CLERK: 16
ayes, 0 nays to place the house under call.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
The house is under call.
Will senators please return to their seats. Will all unauthorized personnel please leave the floor. The house is under call. The question before you is the adoption
of the Schrock amendment to LB 1175.
We are accepting call-in votes.
CLERK: Senator
Wickersham voting yes. Senator
Dwite Pedersen voting yes. Senator
Hudkins voting yes. Senator
Schmitt voting yes. Senator Chris
Peterson voting yes. Senator
Robinson voting yes.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Please record.
CLERK: 25
ayes, 0 nays on adoption of Senator Schrock’s amendment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
The Schrock amendment is adopted.
I raise the call. Mr.
Clerk, next amendment.
CLERK: Next
amendment, Senator Thompson, AM4003, but she wants to substitute 4314. (See pages 1763-65 of the Legislative
Journal.)
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Senator Suttle, are you authorized to take this amendment on Senator
Thompson’s behalf?
SENATOR SUTTLE:
Yes, Madam President.
15835
April 6, 1998
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Is there any objection to the withdrawal and substitution? Hearing none, Senator Thompson,
please... excuse me, Senator
Suttle, please proceed with the amendment.
SENATOR SUTTLE:
I am Senator Thompson right now.
Thank you, Madam President, members of the Legislature. This amendment was originally
introduced by Senator Thompson as LB 1344 and I have passed out an information
sheet that she made available before she had to leave. The Education Committee included this
language as part of their committee amendments, but it was one of the divided
amendments which failed to advance.
This amendment would make Nebraska’s compulsory school attendance law
more specific by requiring school districts to have policies on excessive
absenteeism. Currently, the
statute outlines processes by which parents or guardians are first contacted by
the school to address the problem and then by which they are referred to the
county attorney’s office if they fail to comply with the law. However, statute does not define when
these actions would take place.
One of the deputy county attorneys, a quote from him says there’s no
other endeavor in life that a child or person can engage and there’s not some
sort of attendance policy. If
you’re going to be a member of the school activity, if you’re going to go out
or become gainfully employed, there’s an attendance policy. And these are I good practices for a
child to learn at an early age. In
the original form, this would include language stating that after a maximum of
four days or the hourly equivalent per quarter, school districts would begin
the process of working with parents in absenteeism issues. This has been changed to a maximum of
five days or the hourly equivalent.
It also provides that no more than 20 absences per year, per school year
districts could refer cases to the county attorney office. That would ensure that absenteeism from
the previous quarter of a school year, for example, could be added to
calculations for the current school year.
As a result of input from various school district representatives,
additional language has been included that would give schools discretion in
determining whether or not to count excused or unexcused absences in the
formation of this policy. The
definition before you is the result of a collaborative effort of a team of
people with large and small school districts, law enforcement and prosecutorial
agencies, the courts and probation.
It’s a definition that school
15836
April 6, 1998
districts throughout the state can comply with without a
great deal of difficulty. It also
allows for local flexibility. In
fact, most districts may draw even tighter definitions than the ceiling
provided for in this bill. By
setting clear checkpoints in state law as a Legislature, we can assure that we
are dealing with school absenteeism consistently. Excessive absenteeism is often the first indicator of a
child’s future problems. Students
who are habitually truant are at high risk of becoming law violators. They are also apt to drop out of
school, significantly diminishing their ability to support themselves and their
families. Parental responsibility
is key to addressing this issue, and I urge you to support this amendment to
provide a clear policy of the issue of excessive school absenteeism, in our
schools. Thank you, Madam
President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Suttle.
Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Madam President and members.
I support this amendment and I wanted to clarify this was not passed
previously because, as you remember, when we discussed the number of bills that
were on the bill and this ... we
got to select three. This was not
one of the three selected but it truly was a noncontroversial piece of
legislation that was originally a part of the bill, but it’s brought to you now
as an amendment and one that had no votes against it in committee. Everyone generally agreed that it was
an improvement and certainly gives schools guidelines for setting their policy
on something that we all recognize is very important. So I support the amendment 4314.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Bohlke.
Senator Hilgert.
SENATOR HILGERT:
Thank you, Madam President.
If Senator Suttle would yield to a few questions.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Senator Suttle.
SENATOR SUTTLE:
Certainly.
SENATOR HILGERT:
In LB 1344, 1 believe it had policy was after four days.
15837
April 6, 1998
SENATOR SUTTLE:
Yes, and then the amendment has been changed to five.
SENATOR HILGERT:
And was there a vote taken on LB 1344 in committee?
SENATOR SUTTLE:
Yes.
SENATOR HILGERT:
Okay, because I didn’t see a committee statement in these books or on
the computer. What was that vote
in committee?
SENATOR SUTTLE:
It Was 8 to 0...
SENATOR HILGERT:
Eight to zero.
SENATOR SUTTLE:
... to advance it. I think the reason it’s not on there,
if you look under 1175, it was part of the amendments that we wanted to put on
1175 on General File and we couldn’t because the restrictions put on us by our
esteemed senator from District 11.
SENATOR HILGERT:
Yeah, but even I believe 3 of the 13 or 4 of the... 3 of the 13 bills that were attempted
at that time I think 3 of them did have committee statements and had votes on
them but these had votes but were never reported out of committee?
SENATOR SUTTLE:
Not in 1344. It was voted
out of committee as a committee amendment to 1175.
SENATOR HILGERT:
Okay, I understand. I
understand the procedure that was taken.
SENATOR SUTTLE:
Okay.
SENATOR HILGERT:
Thank you very much. I
certainly support, well, I support LB 1344 as well as amendment 4003
(sic-4314). There’s been a lot of
work in Douglas County and Sarpy County regarding this issue. This represents the culmination of a
lot of hours of a lot of good people coming together to try to solve this
problem which has become endemic in our school systems in metro area
Omaha. And hopefully this will
give the tools to
15838
April 6, 1998
start addressing this issue of absenteeism. Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Hilgert.
Senator Stuhr.
SENATOR STUHR:
Thank you, Madam President and members. I just have a couple questions, Senator Suttle. I have received some calls from my
schools that are not particularly looking at this favorably in the fact that
they feel it is another mandate that they are going to have to do. And I was wondering can you tell me
what kind of reporting? I mean
they will have to fill out a form.
They’ll have to follow through in all of the provisions that are listed.
SENATOR SUTTLE:
They already have to do that in some kind of form. But at this point, it really will not
add that much to what they already have to do, and there’s a lot of leniency in
how they want to address this. So
I don’t think that they will find that this is onerous in any way.
SENATOR STUHR:
Okay.
SENATOR SUTTLE:
Because they still have to keep attendance records.
SENATOR STUHR:
Okay. And what we’re just
doing is setting some minimum or...
SENATOR SUTTLE:
Right, some guidelines for them so that they can start addressing
absenteeism at an earlier time and address whatever problems that family is
having so that they can nip it early and see if they can’t work with the
problems earlier than at a later time.
SENATOR STUHR:
Okay. Right. And I think probably again the size of
school is probably a factor because many of the smaller schools are not dealing
with those kinds of problems so, okay, thank you very much.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Stuhr.
Senator Wehrbein.
SENATOR WEHRBEIN:
Yes, Madam President, members.
I have a
15839
April 6, 1998
couple questions I don’t know whether of Senator Suttle or
Senator Bohlke, but I’m comfortable with this. This is not really an issue of mine, but I was wondering
five absences per quarter, is that what I read that correct? What in a place where... I mean kids are gone for showing
livestock? I mean is there room in
this policy for flexibility enough to allow those that use this?
SENATOR SUTTLE:
Yes. Excused and unexcused
absences are treated usually differently.
And if a parent has excused the child, this is not usually seen as an
absent. These are usually kids
that are skipping school or truant in some way. And if they have the parent’s permission, the school can
decide not to count this against them.
SENATOR WEHRBEIN:
That leads me, I appreciate that, that leads me to another
question. What if they get in a
situation where a kid is truant by our standards but the parents will say,
well, we excused him yesterday and today and tomorrow. I mean, we have no interest in his
attendance.
SENATOR SUTTLE:
That does come up. And I’m
not sure that this would address that problem. That is a local decision and it’s up to them to decide
whether there’s something wrong in that family or not. But this will give them a clear
guideline on and the parameters under which to decide whether they would work
with the family and try to point out to the family that they have a problem
here.
SENATOR WEHRBEIN: Okay, thank you.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator. Senator
Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Madam President, members.
The one thing, Senator Stuhr, that I wanted to point out is this merely
clarifies already an existing mandate and in fact schools are to now report
each absence. This allows them
more flexibility in some ways because it’s after five. And so I don’t know if the schools that
contacted you realize that, but currently at least they are supposed to be
reporting each unexcused absence.
This allows them to do that after five. So really it’s a clarification of a current mandate, but
should make the
15840
April 6, 1998
recordkeeping and that type of reporting actually easier
for schools. Thank you.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator. Seeing
no further lights, Senator Suttle to close.
SENATOR SUTTLE:
I would simply ask that you support Senator Thompson’s, I’m really sorry
she’s not here to see that this is possibly going to be amended on to 1175 and
appreciate you supporting her amendment.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator.
Question before the body is the adoption of the Thompson amendment. All those in favor vote aye; all those
opposed vote nay. Have you all
voted? Please record.
CLERK: 25
ayes, 0 nays on adoption of Senator Thompson’s amendment as offered by Senator
Suttle.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
The Thompson amendment is adopted.
Mr. Clerk, next amendment.
CLERK: Senator
Bohlke, 4242. (AM4242 is found on
page 1585 of the Legislative Journal.)
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Chair recognizes Senator Bohlke, to open on her amendment.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Madam President and members.
This amendment to the bill is simply a date change. Currently, 1175 requires Class I’s to
turn in their part of the budget by September 1st. This changes that date to August lot and it requires all
budget documents to be filed by that date and applies existing late filing
penalties to late filings of the budget documents to high school districts. Over the interim when we were touring
around the state, this is one issue that was brought forward to the Education
Committee a number of times and that those budgets were not being turned in in
a timely fashion. And in order for
the high schools to set those, their overall budgets, they needed to get this
information in an appropriate time and so that is the reason for the August lot
date, changing it from September 1st to August lot. Thank you.
April 6, 1998
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Bohlke.
Is there any discussion of the Bohlke amendment? Seeing none, Senator Bohlke, to
close. Closing is waived. The question before you is the adoption
of the Bohlke amendment to LB 1175.
All those in favor vote aye; all those opposed vote nay. Have you all voted? Have you all voted who intend to vote?
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, I’m afraid once again we’re going to have to have a call of the
house and I will accept call-in votes.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator. The question
before the body is the motion to go under call. All those in favor vote aye; all those opposed vote
nay. Please record.
CLERK: 12
ayes, 0 nays to place the house under call.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
The house is under call.
Will senators please return to their seats. Will all unauthorized personnel please leave the floor. The house is under call. Will senators please check in. Senators, please check in. Senator Abboud, Senator Beutler,
Senator Bromm. Senator Chambers,
will you check in. Senator
Bruning, Senator Coordsen, Senator Matzke, will you -check in, please. Senator Robak, Senator Robinson,
Senator Schellpeper, Senator Wesely and Senator Wickersham. The question before the body is the
adoption of the Bohlke amendment to LB 1175. We are accepting call-in votes.
CLERK: Senator
Cudaback voting yes. Senator
Hilgert voting yes. Senator
Schrock voting yes. Senator Kiel
voting yes. Senator Suttle voting
yes.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Please record.
CLERK: 26
ayes, 0 nays on adoption of the amendment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
The Bohlke amendment is adopted.
Mr. Clerk, next amendment.
I raise the call.
15842
April 6, 1998
CLERK: Senator
Bohlke, 4296. (AM4296 is found on
Page 1597 of the Legislative Journal.)
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Chair recognizes Senator Bohlke, to open on her amendment.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Madam President. Mr.
Clerk, did you say amendment 4296?
Yes, that’s the one I wish to take up. This one gets a little more substantive so some of the
technical ones we’ve not had a great deal of attention to. I would like to point out to you that
this amendment goes to the issue of the Governor having vetoed LB 1110 but
signing the A bill to 1110 (LB 1110A).
What happened with that is when he signed the A bill to 1110, that said
that the funds should be taken out of General Funds. It also, if you remember, had the formula for the small
schools contained in it and the allowable growth. So this amendment takes care of that issue and covers those
three issues. It does provide for
the distribution and it has the equity factor and it provides for an annual
growth rate. it does not repeal LB
180. It just distributes the 9.7
million passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. When the Governor vetoed 1110 and
signed 1110A, it left a conflict.
This resolves that conflict and aligns it so that it recognizes the
funds would come from the General Funds.
And I will be ready to answer any questions that you may have.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator. Is
there any discussion of the Bohlke amendment? Senator Maurstad.
SENATOR MAURSTAD:
If Senator Bohlke could respond to an inquiry.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Senator Bohlke, will you yield?
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes.
SENATOR MAURSTAD:
Senator, would this amendment be needed if we override the Governor’s
veto of 1110?
SENATOR BOHLKE:
No, this would not be needed if we were sure we were going to override
the Governor’s veto of 1110.
15843
April 6, 1998
SENATOR MAURSTAD:
Does this amendment do the same thing that overriding 1110 would do?
SENATOR BOHLKE:
No, because this does not get to that issue of the difference of opinion
between the 180 trust fund and the General Funds. What this does, I had said that there was that disagreement
I guess between the Appropriations Committee and the Governor’s Office. I said, as Chair of the Education
Committee, I ... that was not my
battle. My concern was making our*
that we correctly had the formula in place and the ability to send the money to
the ESUs. This does that. We could still go ahead with the
override, but it would be more to the issue of that disagreement between the
Appropriations Committee and the Governor.
SENATOR MAURSTAD:
Thank you, Senator. I don’t
know that I would necessarily characterize the situation involving LB 1110 as a
disagreement only with the Appropriations Committee. it’s my judgment that the Appropriations Committee actions
reflect the intent by the Legislature in the decisions that were made last year
relative to LB 180. And I think
that Senator Coordsen addressed that.
I don’t see Senator Coordsen on the floor right now, but I think he
addressed that when we had a previous discussion relative to this particular
issue. I have some reluctance at
this point. I guess I’m not sure
exactly what I would intend to do.
I certainly don’t want to support the amendment if that means that it
will be less likely that the override would be successful. So I’ll continue to listen and I
appreciate the response of Senator Bohlke’s to my questions. Thank you.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Maurstad.
Senator Wehrbein.
SENATOR WEHRBEIN:
Madam Speaker and members, what was your answer, Senator Bohlke?
.SENATOR BOHLKE:
To which question? What the
override would do with this? What
I’ve said is that I think this clarifies the issue of the funding for the
ESUs. It would seem to me that
there would still be that issue hanging out there on the 180
15844
April 6, 1998
fund that would have to be addressed in an override issue.
SENATOR WEHRBEIN:
Senator Chambers does a good job of (inaudible) us out here, doesn’t
he? Well, I’m interested because
I, too, don’t want to jeopardize the override of 1110 and what we’re doing
-there; and I know what you’re trying to do, here and I think it will work
out. But I am concerned that, yes,
we’re on Select and you want 1175 to pass and it will be too late to jerk it
out and I guess we’re not going to take up overrides for a couple of days
yet. So it is kind of a dilemma,
but I do understand your need to have this in the bill in case something would
come up on 1110, but....
SENATOR BOHLKE:
And, Senator Wehrbein, if there’s a question if this goes over to Final
Reading and there was something that we discovered was in direct conflict or
something we needed to do, we could pull it back and work with you on
that. I don’t think it does
that. My concern is making sure
that we get the money out to the schools, and certainly the formula in there
that was for small schools, that we address that and get that done Just because
you may be very successful with the override. But as I’ve seen it, my role and job for the Education
Committee is to make sure that these funds are in place for the ESUs.
SENATOR WEHRBEIN:
And I understand that and I had hoped that we wouldn’t have to put this
in originally, that 1110 would come up in time that we’d have it out of the way
and apparently that’s not to happen.
But I do remind the body or at least those who are listening that I
think it will be very critical to do 1110 at this point. That’s one, the only issue thus far the
Appropriations Committee has recommended.
And not that we won’t be maybe doing some more on 1108, but 1110 is the
way. And when we get to that bill,
I’ll speak more to what at least our view and I think Revenue Committee and
many, many others feel is the proper way to distribute that money, not the
distribution formula per se, but the way we have control over it. So I guess I will probably be voting
for this amendment, but I’m concerned about something that we’re not
anticipating in time especially if it would damage the fact of overriding 1110
because I do feel quite strongly about that. Thank you.
SENATOR WESELY PRESIDING
15845
April 6, 1998
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Wehrbein.
Chair recognizes Senator Cudaback.
SENATOR CUDABACK:
Mr. Speaker, members, I’d like to ask Senator Bohlke a question, please,
if she would...
SENATOR WESELY:
Do you yield, Senator?
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes.
SENATOR CUDABACK:
Senator Bohlke, I’ve had several people call me and wonder how vetoing
of LB 1110 would ... would that
affect the way the formula and the way the dollars are sent around the state,
you might say?
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Senator Cudaback, that was one of the major concerns with that veto
is because it did contain the formula, the equity formula. And so by vetoing it, it meant that it
had a very negative impact on the smaller schools.
SENATOR CUDABACK:
So this will put it back?
SENATOR BOHLKE:
So this puts that formula back in place and puts that equity in to make
sure that the money goes out in an equalized fashion.
SENATOR CUDABACK:
Okay, that’s what I ...
thank you.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Cudaback.
Chair recognizes, Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN:
Senator Bohlke, would you yield to a question?
SENATOR WESELY:
Senator Bohlke, do you yield?
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes.
SENATOR BROWN:
This would just fund the ESU amount out of General Funds so that it
would look like we had $10 million, $9.7 million less than we actually have
because... and we already are
skewed because we have this 20 million set aside
15846
April 6, 1998
that ...
without an override on 1110.
We have the $20 million set aside.
Now we will take another 9.7 million off of our General Funds that was
originally assumed to be a part of that 20 million. Correct?
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Senator Brown, let me put it this way. This will put in there what you would put in there with your
override on 1110. What it does not
include is the LB 180 issue.
SENATOR BROWN:
Right.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
It puts it in and harmonizes it with really what was the outcome of
vetoing 1110 and leaving the A bill.
It left the two in conflict and so that was the problem. This resolves that conflict and says,
yes, it will come out of General Funds.
SENATOR BROWN:
Thank you, Senator Bohlke.
I’m not sure that I necessarily agree that it resolves the conflict
because I think the bigger issue that we need to deal with than just the ESU
part is whether we are going to have these, the $20 million set aside and
whether we are going to be funding not just the ESUs but any other kinds of
property tax issues, whether we’re going to fund them so that they show up on
our status as a regular expenditure rather than this amount which originally
was the $20 million was set aside just as a way to have that amount of money to
address property tax relief. And
so we have a much bigger issue here than just dealing, as important as it is to
deal with the ESU issue, we have a much bigger issue that has to do with how we
best track the amount of monies that we are spending in property tax relief,
how we best manage our funds and whether it’s best to have these amounts that
don’t show up on the status. And
so I will say that at this point I am, even though I understand completely what
Senator Bohlke is attempting to do and understand completely that addressing
the ESU issue is important, I think it is much more important to address the
whole issue of how we’re going to manage this property tax, these amounts of
property tax relief and whether the $20 million was an absolute ceiling or a
general goal that then we would have it set aside so that we could use that to
address issues in the same way we address any other issues that shows up on the
status in a way that we can track it.
So I am reserving
15847
April 6, 1998
judgment. At
this point I am leaning against supporting this amendment because I think that
it may detract from our ability to override the veto on 1110 which I believe is
very significant in our financial management. Thank you.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Brown.
Senator Hartnett.
SENATOR HARTNETT:
Mr. President, members of the body, I rise to support this
amendment. I think to me the part
is maybe not the funding but is the part of the distribution of the funds
because last year when we passed the ESU bill it had it based on students. This one here is that they do not get,
what is it, less than 2.5 percent of the funds so... and I don’t, you know, follow where the ... but I see that as the most important
part of this because it helps the area where Senator Cudaback comes much more
than my area. But I think it’s a
fairness and an equity issue that we need to deal with. So with that, I would support the
amendment.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Hartnett.
Senator Maurstad. Senator
Maurstad. Waives off. Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker and members.
We have had a chance to have Legal Counsel consult with the Fiscal
Office and look at if we did this today and tomorrow did the override, will the
two correlate and, yes, they will.
And so I just think it’s the responsible thing as viewed from a member
of the Education Committee and having worked with Senator Hartnett and a number
of others on this ESU issue.
That’s what I’m trying to address, the ESU issue that we discussed last
year and that unfortunately got caught up in this network of other issues. And so I think we can go ahead with
this. We then know that we have
addressed the needs of the ESUs, recognize the importance of doing that, and I
would ask that for your support in certainly knowing that we need a
distribution formula. We have
committed to the 9.7 million and very important for a number of schools is to
have that equity in the bill and know that that has been taken care of. I think that’s the responsible thing to
do and so I urge you to continue to support this. And then if we go with the override tomorrow, the two
correlate. Thank you.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Bohlke.
Chair recognizes
15848
April 6, 1998
Senator Maurstad.
SENATOR MAURSTAD:
Thank you, Mr. President.
This is one of those times when you get torn a little bit because I
think that there may be less likelihood to... for members to be concerned about the override on 1110 if in
fact this aspect of that is taken care of. So it appears that the discussion is winding down on
this. I would just say that I
would hope that if this amendment is adopted that members will be as supportive
of the unanimous recommendation of the Appropriations Committee to
override. LB 1110 as they are with
understanding the concerns of the Chairperson of the Education Committee and
members of the Education Committee.
I think it is important that we override LB 1110, that in fact the trust
fund dollars go to the General Fund so that it can take care of this obligation
and some of the other obligations relative to state aid for property tax
relief. And as such, I hope that
that is kept in mind. Thank you.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Maurstad.
Chair recognizes Senator Stuhr.
SENATOR STUHR:
Thank you, Mr. President and members. I rise in support of the amendment. As a member of the Education Committee,
we have felt that the funding mechanism that we have provided or did provide in
LB 1110 is very important for the distribution of the funds so I rise in
support. Thank you.
SENATOR WESELY:
The Chair recognizes Senator Landis.
SENATOR LANDIS:
Question.
SENATOR WESELY:
The question has been raised.
Do I see five hands? I
do. The question before the house
is whether or not the question shall be called. Those in favor vote aye, opposed nay. Have you all voted? Question is, shall we cease
debate? Have you all voted? Question is, shall we cease
debate? Record, Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: 25
ayes, 0 nays to cease debate, Mr. President.
SENATOR WESELY:
Debate ceases. Chair
recognizes Senator Bohlke, to close on her amendment.
15849
April 6, 1998
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker and members.
If ... I think we had a
good discussion. I hope that I’ve
pointed out to you the necessity of adopting this amendment. For those of you who may not have been
on the floor when we discussed it, this allows us to send ... to have the distribution formula for
the ESUs in this bill and recognizes that we will be able to send out the 97
(sic-9.7) million dollars and take into account the... I mean the 9.7 million, and take into
account the formula that is necessary for the equity in the funding. And so I’m glad I got the Chair of the
Revenue Committee’s attention when I moved it to $97 million. I certainly would have gotten the ESUs’
attention. But I do ask for your
adoption and I remind you that what we have said is if tomorrow you would
choose to override 1110, this will correlate with that. What we have taken care of here is
recognizing the importance of getting those funds Out to ESUs and doing it in
an equitable fashion. So with
that, I ask for your adoption.
Thank you.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Bohlke.
The question is the adoption of the Bohlke amendment. Those in favor vote aye, opposed
nay. Have you all voted? Have you all voted? Record, Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: 28
ayes, 0 nays, Mr. President, on adoption of Senator Bohlke’s amendment.
SENATOR WESELY:
The amendment is adopted.
Next item, Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: Senator
Bohlke, 4295.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes.
SENATOR WESELY:
Chair recognizes Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clerk, I wish to pull that amendment.
SENATOR WESELY:
Okay. Amendment is
withdrawn. Next item, Mr. Clerk.
15850
April 6, 1998
CLERK: Senator
Bohlke, 4281. (AM4281 is found on
page 1605 of the Legislative Journal.)
SENATOR WESELY:
Chair recognizes Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, members, this is a technical amendment that does three
things. We harmonize the date for
county superintendents to send annual statistical summary reports to the
Commissioner of Education with a new date that school districts are required to
submit the reports. We correct a
reference defining the valuation year for designating primary high school
districts, and we allow the Department of Education more flexibility to make
payments before below age five special education grants when claims are
submitted. That’s the essence of
it. They truly are very technical,
and I would ask for their adoption.
SENATOR WESELY:
Okay. Chair recognizes
Senator Lynch. Chair recognizes
Senator Kristensen.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN:
Thank you, Mr. President, members of the Legislature. I hesitate to do this because I know
we’re in the middle of this amendment, but I heard two or three references in
the last amendment, I punched my light on, about people under the impression we
may take up overrides tomorrow and that was an amendment to the education bill. You’ll see on the agenda tomorrow it’s
just a motion to suspend the rules so we don’t have to do the overrides on
Wednesday. So we’re not taking up
the overrides on Wednesday unless the motion fails tomorrow to suspend the
rules so I wanted to make that point clear. I understand that if there were other discussions in this
bill being made that we’re going to do overrides on Wednesday, that’s not true
unless the motion to suspend the rules tomorrow fails. Thank you, Mr. President.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There are no other lights.
Senator Bohlke, do you wish to close on your amendment? Waives closing. The question before us is the adoption
of the Bohlke amendment. Those in
favor vote aye, those opposed nay.
Record, Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: 28
ayes, 0 nays on adoption of Senator Bohlke’s
15851
April 6, 1998
amendment.
SENATOR WESELY:
The amendment is adopted.
Next item, Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: Senator
Bohlke, 4274.
SENATOR WESELY:
Chair recognizes Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker and members, this is another technical amendment that
just changes the date for the first year of... for LB 1228 and makes the incentive payments on or before
October 1, 1998, for the 1998-99 school fiscal year. And actually it’s for the application, as Legal Counsel has
told me, just changes the date to October 1, 1998, for this first year. Thank you.
SENATOR WESELY:
Any discussion on the Bohlke amendment? Seeing none, you may close.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes. There’s been some
discussion if we were on the correct amendment. I’m sorry. We
had it on our list as 4215 and I’m sorry the board says we’re on 4274.
CLERK: We’re
on 4274.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
I apologize. I’m
sorry. At this point, Mr. Clerk,
what should we do?
CLERK: Well,
just withdraw the one we’re on, Senator; 4215 is the next amendment.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes.
CLERK: So
withdraw 4274?
SENATOR BOHLKE:
And, well, I’ll refile it, yes.
CLERK: You
want it to go to the bottom, is that?
SENATOR BOHLKE:
What we have just discussed is, yes, have it go to the bottom.
15852
April 6, 1998
CLERK:
Okay. Senator Bohlke, I
then have 4215 in front of me.
(AM4215 is found on page 1700 of the Legislative Journal.)
SENATOR WESELY:
Chair recognizes Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, members, I apologize. This is the one that changes the date to October 1st. I’m sorry for the confusion.
SENATOR WESELY:
Okay. Is there any
discussion on this amendment by Senator Bohlke? Seeing none, do you wish to close, Senator Bohlke? Waives closing. The question before the Legislature is
adoption of the Bohlke amendment.
Those in favor vote aye, opposed nay. Have you all voted?
Question is adoption of the Bohlke amendment. Have you all voted?
Record, Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: 25
ayes, 0 nays, Mr. President, on adoption of Senator Bohlke’s amendment.
SENATOR WESELY:
The amendment is adopted.
Next item, Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: Senator
Willhoft has 4377. (See pages
1766-67 of the Legislative Journal.)
SENATOR WESELY:
Chair recognizes Senator Willhoft.
SENATOR WILLHOFT:
Mr. Chairman and members of the body, I bring to you amendment 4377 to
LB 1175 and this amendment appears to be rather long, but the language was not
present in LB 1175 so Senator Coordsen’s amendment had to be to... to 1219 had to be repeated in its
entirety with the changes that I am proposing. It amends the temporary mitigation funds provisions that
were amended into LB 1219. This is
a one-time only appropriation to those districts that fell below 90 percent in
their budget for the coming year.
It adds a new alternative criteria for systems with more than 175 square
miles. The criteria for qualifying
local systems with the new alternative remain basically the same. The criteria for all qualified local
systems must meet the General Fund budgets minus special education budgets do
not
15853
April 6, 1998
grow more than 2 percent plus the student growth from the
1995-96 to 1997-98 year. Qualified
local school systems must meet one of the following additional criteria and
that was the intent to merge, consolidate, or unify, be sparse or very sparse
local system. And the one that was
added is the local system contains more than 175 square miles. And this is a significant size of that
district, but they have a limited potential to reorganize, merge, or
consolidate for various reasons not related to their own situation. And the fourth one would be the
clerical error cause loss in aid.
The amendment amends the provision for calculating student growth. Current provisions, the percentage growth
in students equal the average daily membership for 1996-97 and the average
daily membership, divided by the average daily membership of 194-95. The amended version more closely
matches the procedures used to develop the list Senator Coordsen used on the
floor except that the student growth will be based on local systems and Senator
Coordsen’s list is based only on high school districts. Not all on the list would be affected. And I have passed out in the pink copy
or orange copy those districts. And
you’ll see stars by the districts that exceed 175 square miles. The ones with an S are sparse, the ones
with a VS are very sparse, and the ones that just. have a star are the ones that have a potential of being
helped or have more potential of being helped by this amendment. It isn’t a guarantee that they will
fall on this list, but it does make it a greater possibility. The calculation is calculated in the
same manner as the growth in students was calculated for the budget growth
limitations for ‘96 and ‘97 and 197 and ‘98 except that the growth in students
is calculated for local systems and the growth may be negative for each year
for the purpose of adding the growth in students together from each school
fiscal year. But the two-year
percentage growth rate shall be zero if the sum is negative. As I mentioned, this has the potential
to help about six or seven schools that are on this list, has a high potential
to help them. It may not help any
others. It may help a few of the
others. But with that, I would
urge the body to support this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Willhoft.
The Chair recognizes Senator Coordsen.
15854
April 6, 1998
SENATOR COORDSEN:
Thank you, Mr. President and members of the body. I do rise to support the Willhoft
amendment. This is something we
did talk about on the side. It
recognizes the problems Of large old consolidations that was not adequately
recognized at the other debate. It
does not change, it does not change, it does not change the amount of
money. It simply redistributes
that because, if you recall, we had a pro rata distribution process and I
believe that this will make it just a little bit fairer for those large old consolidations
that really don’t have anywhere to go.
So, with that, I do support the Willhoft amendment.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Coordsen.
Chair recognizes Senator Schrock.
SENATOR SCHROCK:
Mr. Chairman, members of the Legislature, I also rise to support the
Willhoft amendment. And if we can
allow a few more schools to take advantage of LB 1247 as long as they’re
meeting the other requirements, I think we should do 80. So I thank Senator Willhoft for
bringing this issue in front of the body.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Schrock.
Chair recognizes Senator Vrtiska.
SENATOR VRTISKA:
Thank you, Senator Wesely and members of the body. I, too, rise in support of the Willhoft
amendment. I think it’s the only
opportunity we have to do something for some of these schools that have been
ignored before. I’m not sure it’s
going to help any of the schools in my district, but if it helps any schools
anywhere in Nebraska, I think it’s something we ought to take a real good look
at. And I would ask that you also
support the Willhoft amendment.
Thank you.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Vrtiska.
Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker and members.
I just rise to remind you the only reason that I am riot voting on this
or speaking specifically on how I feel is that I said originally I had a
conflict filed, a conflict of interest filed with this very issue. And for that reason, regardless of how
I feel, I am unable to vote. Thank
you.
15855
April 6, 1998
SENATOR WESELY:
Seeing no other lights, Chair recognizes Senator Willhoft, to close on
his amendment.
SENATOR WILLHOFT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
would just urge the members of the body to vote in favor of this
amendment. I think it kind of
corrects an error that was mentioned by Senator Coordsen in the original amendment
to 1219 and would help rectify some of those shortcomings that may have
occurred. With that, I would close
my closing.
SENATOR WESELY:
Thank you, Senator Willhoft.
The question before the Legislature is adoption of the Willhoft
amendment. Those in favor vote
aye, those opposed nay. Have you
all voted? Clerk, record.
CLERK: 29
ayes, 0 nays, Mr. President, on the adoption of Senator Willhoft’s amendment.
SENATOR WESELY:
The amendment is adopted.
Next, Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: Senator
Wickersham would move to amend.
(AM4035 is found on page 1548 of the Legislative Journal.)
SENATOR WESELY:
Chair recognizes Senator Wickersham.
SENATOR WICKERSHAM:
Thank you, Mr. President.
This amendment ... we’ve
been adopting a number of amendments with very, very little discussion. But this amendment is not quite as
technical as some of the other amendments that have been presented to you. This amendment represents or involves a
very, very serious policy issue for us and that is how to treat freeholding in
school districts. The current law
says that if you have under 60 students in your school for two years and the
school district votes to override, that if you’re contiguous to another
district you can freehold out, which means that after the vote has been taken
that you can remove your property from the school district, not suffer the
consequences of the vote, but leave your neighbors to suffer the consequences
of the vote and, in fact, leave your neighbors with less resources than they
started with when the original vote was taken. Now there’s a justification for the freeholding policy that
we have in our
15856
April 6, 1998
statutes. And
that justification in my estimation is kind of the tyranny of the
majority. And in this instance,
it’s the tyranny by majority that don’t have to pay. Because if you have a whole bunch of people in your school
district, many of them owning small or negligible amounts of property, the
theory is that they’re more than willing to vote for a levy override because
they don’t pay. They receive the
benefit because they have kids, grandkids, family members in school, but they
don’t pay- They don’t pay nearly as much as the folks who own property and will
pay but don’t have all the votes.
That was the idea behind the freeholding provisions as they’re currently
in the law. The amendment presents
a little different issue. What the
amendment says is, is okay, you’ve had a vote, your levies are going up, but
you have to suffer the consequences of the vote but you don’t have to suffer
the consequences of two votes. So
once the original override expires and if the school district is still having
enrollment of under 60 students, and if they’re going to vote again to override
the levy, then you can leave. Now
that protects the resource base during the period of the override. It does subject some individuals to
higher taxes than they might have under current existing law. But there’s another element in the
discussion that I think I should call to your attention and that is that the
amendment would tend to treat those individuals who under current law could
freehold out in much the same fashion that they would be treated if there was a
vote for a bond. Because if there
was a vote for a bond, there’s no ability to freehold out; and they would still
have to pay for the bond and other people would have voted it in. So the reason I’m offering the
amendment to you, and that’s the only rationale for offering the amendment to
you, is that it makes the levy override votes look like bond issue votes. I don’t know if that’s good enough for
this amendment, but that’s what it makes it look like, that’s the
rationale. This is not an easy
vote for me personally. I think
you can vote either way and be correct, quite frankly. But I think the issue is a serious one
for the property taxpayers, particularly in some of these districts that are
now voting for levy overrides, and you have property owners who have really no
ability because they’re few in number, no real ability to control their liability. That’s the issue that’s presented. Do you want to treat them like a bond
issue or do you want to give them the kind of protection that’s in the current
law in those circumstances
15857
April 6, 1998
where they maybe have no control, no real effective control
over their tax liability? I’m
going to look forward, quite frankly, to the discussion. I hope that the issue that’s presented
to you is something that you can resolve in your own minds, but it is not an
easy one.
PRESIDENT ROBAK PRESIDING
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator. Senator
Coordsen, your light is first.
SENATOR COORDSEN:
Thank you, Madam President, members of the body. I think that this amendment that
Senator Wickersham is presenting to us this evening is something that we should
look at very, very seriously.
Certainly we have provided in 1114 for the opportunity for all units of
local government to override the statutory caps that are placed upon the
governing bodies and that’s part of the local control mechanism. However, with the separating out of
small schools with the 60-student limitation for high school students to allow
for the freeholding creates perhaps an untenable position for many schools in
the state of Nebraska. And
certainly I’d introduced legislation earlier that would apply this freeholding
provision to all of the schools in the state no matter what their student
enrollment would have been. And
what that bill did was that if there was an override vote, then anybody who had
contiguous property with another school district could freehold out, whether
that was the largest school in the state or the smallest school in the
state. Education Committee saw fit
to not advance that bill from committee, but I still think there’s a legitimate
concern that is involved in this and that the amendment being proposed to us by
Senator Wickersham does in fact promote another option, another option for the
schools that might be affected by it.
Thank you.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
Thank you, Senator Coordsen.
Mr. Clerk, items for the record?
CLERK: I do,
Madam President, thank you.
Amendments to be printed:
Senator Kiel, (LB) 1175; Senator Schimek, (LB) 1129; Senator Crosby,
(LB) 1129; Senator Jensen to (LB) 1129; Senator Landis, (LB) 1321; Senator
Hilgert to LR 478. I have Senator
15858
April 6, 1998
Jensen would like to add his name to LB 218; Senator
Hilgert to (LB) 1104; Senator Chambers, (LB) 1266. (See pages 1768-75 of the Legislative Journal.)
Madam President, I have a priority motion. Speaker Kristensen would move to
adjourn until tomorrow morning at nine o’clock.
PRESIDENT ROBAK:
The motion before you is the motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. We are adjourned.
15859