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PRESIDENT ROBAK:  The amendment is withdrawn.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