Debate Transcripts
LB 813 (1999)
Final Reading
April 9, 1999
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: The question before the body is, shall 202A be readvanced to E & R for engrossing? All in favor say aye. Those opposed say nay. It is readvanced. LB 813, Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: Mr. President, LB 813. Senator Bohlke would move to return the bill for AM1143, Senator. (AM1143, Legislative Journal page 1345.)
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Bohlke, you're recognized on your motion to return.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you. This amendment recognizes some technicalities within the current designation of school districts who are either in the process of unifying or in ... have raised issues about qualifying for the sparsity factor. The first is, very simply, that currently for a unification to be effective, the effective date is June 1. This changes that effective date from any time between June 1 and September 1. There are a number of school districts who are currently close to being, getting it all done and in the process of unifying. They may not make that June 1 date. This would recognize that any time up until September 1. However, if they don't meet the June 1 date they would ... they'll still have to wait the year for their incentive payments. So all's it does is allow that unification to be recognized. The second recognizes in the very sparse and sparse criteria that local systems may
3677
have multiple high schools and requires all high schools in the local system meet any criteria specific to high schools, but adds a new set of criteria for being classified as sparse. And what that ... the issue that has been raised by some school districts is they would normally qualify as being sparse. Their school district just ... the high school happens to be in the wrong place, which does not let them qualify under the miles to another school. We did something similar to this in the very sparse categories. This does not affect very many school districts. I believe there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight school districts that have this situation. And then the last situation modifies the countywide system criteria as sparse and currently systems that contain 95 percent of a county are sparse. It's modified that less than two formula students per square mile in the local system and contains and area equal to 95 percent of the square miles in the largest county in which the high school attendance center is located to determine the square miles necessary. You could be big enough to cover the whole county but ... the area of the local system, but does not have ... but it does not have to be in one county. It has to be an area. These are issues that had been raised to us. We were working these out and that's why we had held 813 on Final Reading. There's one other one we're going to have to come back to. We had filed a letter with the Speaker holding it until we had these situations worked out and these amendments worked out. So I would ask for your approval to return to Select File.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Debate on the motion to return, Senator Chris Peterson.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: To the amendment.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Jones.
SENATOR JONES: Mr. Speaker and members of the money (sic), I'd just like to ask Senator Bohlke just one question, just to have it on the record.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Bohlke, would you respond?
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes.
3678
SENATOR JONES: Yes, I've got the list here and that's the schools involved now. It won't take any out of the sparse that are already in it then. It just deals with these here.
SENATOR BOHLKE: That's correct. It's just recognizing those situations where their high school just happens to be sitting in the wrong place.
SENATOR JONES: Thank you. I just wanted to ask. you that question. Thank you.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Cudaback. To the amendment? Further debate on the motion to return? Senator Bohlke, you're recognized to close on your motion to return. She waives closing. The question before the body is, shall ... or shall LB 813 be returned to Select File for a specific amendment? All those in favor vote aye; all those opposed vote nay. Record.
CLERK: 31 ayes, 0 nays, Mr. President, on the motion to return the bill.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: The bill is returned. Senator Bohlke, you're recognized to open on AM1143.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Mr. Speaker, I think I've explained it. I think you said that Senator Peterson and Senator Cudaback had their lights on, so I'll just be ready to answer their questions.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Peterson.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members of the body. Senator Bohlke, could I just ask a couple questions for clarification?
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: When there are the groupings of the systems, there's sparse, very sparse, and then the average group, and there is one pool of money though that does not change but goes out in the formula to affect those schools.
3679
SENATOR BOHLKE: Correct.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: When you change the number of the sparse or very sparse, will that impact the amount of state aid that is going to all of the systems? Could there be a change that affects the average now because of this change that you're doing with the sparse and very sparse?
SENATOR BOHLKE: Senator Peterson, it would only affect those in the sparse category, not those in the very sparse or in the standard.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: So the amount of money that is certified to go would not be affected because more schools enter one group and leave another group.
SENATOR BOHLKE: I want to make sure, Senator Peterson. Just one minute. Senator Peterson, the only thing that could happen and we wouldn't know is if you would pull the sparse costs down by adding these schools, that, or up by adding those, there could be that change. But with just eight, it would be very difficult to impact the entire group.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: By pulling them down, what you're saying is if they go into a different category it would impact their needs. It would change their needs as well as their resources. So, if the resources then would be less and the needs more, it could take money away from the other groups. I guess is what I'm saying is... is this amendment is going to have the ability to again change the formula.
SENATOR BOHLKE: No, it will not take from other groups. The only thing that could happen is that the average cost could, in that sparse group, when you add different schools, may change. But you're only adding eight and so it would be what's going on in those school districts. If your... if those school districts happen to be a little higher cost than the ones who are currently in the sparse school district, that, by adding those in and averaging those costs, may go up a little. At the same time, if those happen to be lower cost districts, it could bring down the costs in the sparse school districts. So it could go
3680
either way, but it will not impact any of the schools in the standard or the very sparse.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: Okay, so ... and, again, I apologize for not understanding this quite so quickly. What you're saying, it will impact only the schools in that separate group. It would not have the ability to pull money away from the average group or the other sparse group.
SENATOR BOHLKE: That's correct.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: Thank you.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Cudaback.
SENATOR CUDABACK: Speaker Kristensen, members, I'd like to ask Senator Bohlke a question please, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes.
SENATOR CUDABACK: Senator Bohlke, I heard you use the word "wrong place" and I guess, for the record, are we going to define that as from school to school, town to town, outskirt to out ... or how we going to ... what's going to be the definition for the...?
SENATOR BOHLKE: We don't really define it. I was... I was just saying that as we look at it currently you may be prevented where the location of a high school is.' This corrects that and allows you to use the less than 2 formula students or less than 1.5 formula students and more than 275 square miles.
SENATOR CUDABACK: So you weren't ... that's what I wanted to make clear. You're not referring to the wrong place "mileagewise". You're referring to...
SENATOR BOHLKE: Well, that you were prevented from qualifying just because your high school was in one part of the school district rather than in another part. That you still are sparse according to the amount of area, the amount of students. It's
3681
just ... you're just prevented, because of where your high school is located, from qualifying.
SENATOR CUDABACK: Okay, but you're not talking about the mileage from town to town, or from school to school or whatever.
SENATOR BOHLKE: No, not ... we say less than 1.5 formula students and more than 275 square miles.
SENATOR CUDABACK: Yeah, when you alluded "the wrong place", I just kind of wanted to make that clear for the record.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes.
SENATOR CUDABACK: Thank you.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Guests of Senator Matzke this morning is Kenny and Mary Helen Christoffersen from Gordon, Nebraska; also Sloan Matzke from Seward. He's ... or she, excuse me, is the daughter of Dr. Jay Matzke, who is our doctor of the day, thank you, Dr. Jay, all sitting under the north balcony. Would you please stand and be recognized by the Legislature. Sorry, Sloan. Senator Raikes.
SENATOR RAIKES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislature. Senator Bohlke, could I address a few questions to you on this, please?
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes.
SENATOR RAIKES: First, Senator, to follow up on a question that Senator Peterson raised, I think her question was that if you ... with this change would it be possible that the standard cost grouping cost per student would be affected, and I just want to make sure that I understood the answer, and I think the answer is that it is possible that that would be affected.
SENATOR BOHLKE: When I asked Legal ... when I asked Legal Counsel we said we wouldn't see a change in the standard or the very sparse. Looking at the fact that you have eight school
3682
districts here who would go into adding into the average of over 200, and so I think that that would be safe to say that you wouldn't have a great impact on, if we're worried about really having seen any dramatic or any impact, much impact on (inaudible).
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay. So-so, if I understand your answer, it is that there would be an impact, but it's probably minimal.
SENATOR BOHLKE: I probably ... and I probably stated that and I'm glad we're clarifying it and I spoke to Senator Peterson over on the side. But if you take 8 school districts and averaged their cost in, as I explained to Senator Peterson, with over ... with 200, you just aren't going to see a change. If you pull out 8 school districts... if you've averaged 208 school districts and you pull out 8 and average ... do the average cost of 200, you just aren't going to see a change that's ... has any type of serious ramifications.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay. To comment a little bit more on that, the issue is that if the eight systems that you happen to pull out of the standard cost grouping and put into the sparse cost grouping were among the higher cost ones in the standard cost grouping, then the standard cost grouping cost per student would go down for the ... maybe not very much, but it would go down. Senator Bohlke, if I could follow up on a couple other questions. Do you happen to know on the last certification what was the cost grouping cost per student in very sparse, sparse, and standard?
SENATOR BOHLKE: That's in our notebooks and I ... I don't have my notebook here and I can't tell you. I don't know.
SENATOR RAIKES: I don't either, and I don't mean to ... to push you for details, but I guess what I was getting at is the following idea. Let me ... would you say roughly that the cost group cost per student in a sparse... for the sparse category is, say, maybe 10 percent more than it would be for the standard cost?
SENATOR BOHLKE: I ... yes.
3683
SENATOR RAIKES: As I recall, maybe something on the order of $500 per student.
SENATOR BOHLKE: And we had that until LB 149 really straightened some of that out, when we were using those estimates we would see that bounce around a little.
SENATOR RAIKES: Right.
SENATOR BOHLKE: With LB 149, we will see that being more constant and I think that would probably be close.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay, so you expect that you will not see a widening gap between the standard cost grouping cost and the sparse and very sparse.
SENATOR BOHLKE: By using the actual data I think, you know, that we will not see what we saw before with using those estimates.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay. Well, it gets to an issue that I wanted to raise, and that is that there are incentives built into the state aid formula to encourage certain kinds of behavior among school systems....
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: One minute.
SENATOR RAIKES: ... mod ... or adjustments to make them more efficient. It was not, I think, a desired incentive for the state aid formula to encourage schools to jump sparsity classes, to go from the standard to the sparse, even though right now if a school is interested in getting more state aid that's probably the most effective way to do it. Would you comment on that, please.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Right, it was not developed as an incentive. However, once you change all of those groupings and, because of the cost difference, that certainly raises the issue for some school districts who are looking at it saying, look, I'm sparse, why ... why am I not qualifying. And, like I said, last year we had that issue with one ... with some of the very sparse school district and now this year in the sparse category. You know,
3684
and so...
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Time.
SENATOR BOHLKE: ... no, it was not meant as an incentive, but at the same time I think it raised the issue with some of those schools saying...
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Time.
SENATOR BOHLKE: ...we consider ourselves sparse.
SENATOR RAIKES: Thank you.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Chris Peterson.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: Mr. President, members of the body, Senator Raikes, do you need some more time?
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Raikes.
SENATOR RAIKES: Senator Bohlke, I ... I did just receive some information on the cost grouping cost. it's actually about...the standard cost grouping is 4,300 dollars, roughly; the sparse is 5,070; the very sparse is 5,572. So there is a considerable difference in the cost grouping costs and, thus, the needs calculation depending upon which category you're in. Very sparse is... is roughly $1,200 higher, which would be ... can't calculate percentages that quickly, but, oh, what, 20 percent more than the standard cost grouping. And the sparse would be 10 percent more than the standard. I'm just making this point to emphasize that there is a considerable incentive financially ... Senator Bohlke, you had a point. If I could yield some of...
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Bohlke.
SENATOR RAIKES: ... Senator Peterson's time.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes, there was one other that, within the very sparse, remember, was the extremely remote that ... that there was a difference of...
3685
SENATOR RAIKES: Although that is not defined as a separate cost...
SENATOR BOHLKE: No.
SENATOR RAIKES: ... category, correct?
SENATOR BOHLKE: Right. But ... right, but we do recognize that situation for some of those schools also.
SENATOR RAIKES: Okay. Well, again, my point was to raise concern that there are these significant differences in the state aid needs calculations for these different categories and perhaps we need to be very careful about changing definitions if ... unless they clearly fit the original intent of the bill. And I think what you ... you are suggesting, and I'm not really arguing, that that's what this proposal would do. Senator Peterson, thank you for the time.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Chris Peterson.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: Am I? Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. I guess this brings up the concern that I have. Whenever we're dealing with the different classifications and there is change within those structures, it ultimately impacts the amount of the aid in the formula. And I am just concerned at this point with the points that Senator Raikes pointed out in changing from the standard to the sparse and the amount of difference in the cost per student that in some way that I am, unfortunately, not quick enough to figure out is going to impact the amount of aid then in the other categories. And so I guess what I'm trying to do is establish something on the record to Bay that that will not happen, if we're able to say that. Okay. Senator Bohlke.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Bohlke, would you respond?
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: I apologize. What I was saying is with the questions that have come up, as we're changing schools from one category to the other and working with the cost per student,
3686
what I want to have clarified is that this will not impact the amount of equalization aid or the benefit to the schools in the average cost group as well as very sparse. Is that correct?
SENATOR BOHLKE: If there was any impact, it would be extremely minimal.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: Okay. I guess I'm hesitant to do this, as always. I know that the intentions are good there; that we're trying to average this out. Questionably, though, I always wonder when ... till we see that readout. I know that's possible, so I guess I will have to just do...
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: One minute.
SENATOR C. PETERSON: ... some careful thinking about this in terms of the minimal effect and what that minimal effect will be, and I guess, Senator Bohlke, at this time I don't have any other questions. Thank you.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Further debate? Senator Bohlke, you're recognized to close.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker and members, as always, this always raises some issues. I think what... I'm thinking of a way that might be the easiest to react to the issue raised by Senator Peterson, is that when we do those differences it, what we've said here, it would be a very minimal change, but we do not...we no longer "rob Peter to pay Paul" within those different classifications. And so I think that what I've ... what I've explained to you is accurate. What I should also add is when Senator Raikes raises the issue of the original intention is that a couple of these school districts are doing what we've asked them to do. They're in the process of unifying and "ill ... more than likely would have become sparse under the original category. But, as they're doing this, this just recognizes those situations that I've explained where the high school just happens to be in the wrong place or recognizing that it could be an area rather than just one county. And so, with that, I will close. Thank you.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: You've heard the closing. The question
3687
before the body is the adoption of AM1143. All those in favor vote aye; all those opposed vote nay. Record.
CLERK: 29 ayes, I nay, Mr. President, on the adoption of the Select File amendment.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: The amendment is adopted. Senator Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I move the advancement of LB 813 to E & R for engrossing.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Question before the body is the readvancement of 813 to E & R for engrossing. All in favor say aye. Those opposed say nay. It's readvanced. Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: Senator Bohlke would move to return LB 813 to Select File for AM1188, Mr. President. (AM1188, Legislative Journal page 1359.)
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Bohlke, you're recognized to open on your motion to return.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a technicality brought to us from the Department of Education. One changes the "developmentally delayed" definition. In the first draft, the department recognized that they needed to correct the original language, and that's all that it does. The second issue is that it ... we strike Section 50. Section 50 had said that you can't collect expenses that occurred 60 days prior to filing the claim. We remove that language. When we did that, a number of attorneys for school districts contacted the Department of Education and said that they thought that opened up a number of issues for schools that we would be allowing parents to file claims from years prior, and that certainly was not the intent. It was in reaction to the United States Department of Education, something that they had thought needed to be clarified. And so, in our conversations with our Department of Education, it was determined to strike Section 50, which we will just put back the original language and let them have the dialogue with the United States Department of Education to come up with better language that would not open up what would ... the schools saw themselves becoming more vulnerable to
3688
those costs and allowing those claims to go far beyond the 60 days. Thank you.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Debate on the motion to return? Senator Bohlke. She waives closing. The question before the body is, shall LB 813 be returned to Select File for specific amendment AM1188? All those in favor vote aye; all those opposed vote nay. Record.
CLERK: 30 ayes, 0 nays, Mr. President, on the motion to return the bill.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Motion is successful. Senator Bohlke, you're recognized to open on AM1188.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the explanation I gave would be my opening and my closing.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Debate on the amendment? Senator Bromm.
SENATOR BROMM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senator Bohlke, I may have been distracted, but I heard the portion of the amendment that you referred to striking that Section 50, but there are other ... there's other changes in this amendment that I may not have heard you talk about that I need to ask you about and they deal with the definition of "disabilities" apparently, and on age 4, line 18 of the bill, it's inserting just one word, other", in front of "disabilities", and I don't know what that changes or why that's necessary. But certainly with the Supreme Court case involving disabilities and concerns about where we're going with funding those areas, I'm wondering what significance that word has. If you would yield... if you... if Senator Bohlke would yield to...
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Senator Bohlke, would you yield?
SENATOR BROMM: ... some discussion, please.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Yes, and this was language that was brought to us from the legal counsel from the department ... from our Department of Education. The word "other" just distinguishes developmentally delayed from other categories, and when they
3689
brought ... when they brought the amendment you're ... the questions you're raising are all in that developmentally delayed language. Their legal counsel felt that the original wording actually needed correcting and that they had made some omissions and so this is the language that they thought was better language to be inserted.
SENATOR BROMM: Okay. Do they... as I read those two sentences, with "other" and with ... excluding "other", I fail to... I fail to understand the significance, but I'll take... I'll certainly take their judgment on that. On page 77 of the bill, the amendment, the amendment also adds language to the effect that, or a diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in a substantial delay in functioning in one or more of the areas that are described above that. Now, again, we're dealing with a definition of developmental delay and there must be some significance that we're pulling this back on Final Reading and inserting these words. It must either broaden the definition or something, and I'm wondering if you would be able to comment on that for me.
SENATOR BOHLKE: Senator Bromm, as we were told, it does not broaden it. It brings it more into compliance with what they say are the new specifications for IDEA and that they thought their original language may not meet those guidelines and that they thought that ... that this was clearer and would bring it in line with those specifications.
SENATOR BROMM: Are these guidelines that have just recently been developed at the federal level that we're trying to comply with, or are they ... have they been guidelines in the past that we just find we need to try to comply with, or... ?
SENATOR BOHLKE: I know, Senator Bromm, there's a great deal going on at the U.S. Department of Education with those guidelines. I do not know if these are particularly new ones. I know the department travels back, discusses with them if we're in compliance or not. They hear from them issues raised that they think we need to address and then we are to bring our statute into line with the U.S. Department of Education. And so I'm not so sure, just as we're having to react to that, that it's an ongoing, possibly, issues that they bring to our
3690
Department of Education.
SENATOR BROMM: Okay. so we're ... we're, more or less, adding some words to the technical definition at the request of our Department of Education, who is examining this ... this area constantly. Is that accurate?
SENATOR BOHLKE: I believe, but ... and I think not only they are examining it but I think they hear from the U.S. Department of Education as they review our statutes and recognize things they think we need to do to come into compliance.
SENATOR BROMM: Okay. Well...
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Time. Senator Bromm, your light is the next one.
SENATOR BROMM: Okay. Thank you. When it comes to ... and I don't have enough knowledge, Senator Bohlke, to take issue on this, but I just... I just sense that when we start using words like "high probability" when it comes to special ed and funding that area it raises... it perhaps... it seems to me that it perhaps lowers the threshold of being able to qualify for some of these things. And we certainly have had periods in the past where we've had our special ed expenses growing in leaps and bounds to the extent that we couldn't figure out any way to keep up with it, and I just hope that we're not chipping away at the standards or something to the extent that we're going to have funding problems in a year or two. But I ... I understand what you're doing it for and I don't have a basis upon which to object. I just wanted to discuss it, try to understand it. So thank you, Senator Bohlke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: (Visitors introduced.) Further debate on the specific amendment? Senator Bohlke, you're recognized to close.
SENATOR BOHLKE: I'll take back my part that I said I wasn't going to close and just respond one thing to Senator Bromm that I didn't get to on his time, that when I said that we were holding this on Final Reading and had asked not to have it up until we were trying to work some things out, it was not that
3691
definition originally. That was file ... you know, the department recognized that, brought that to us. It was the issue of the 60 days as school attorneys were raising that issue with our Department of Education, that we are trying to hold that and get that worked out. Finally decided that we didn't want to leave any vulnerability for the schools, that we would reinsert that language and let the ... our department fight with the United States Department of Education and that...maybe that issue may come back next year, but that's why. That was the area that we've really been having the most discussion on, and the other was just presented to us by the department as ... certainly not as broadening or doing any of the issues that we don't want to do, but certainly ... but was presented to us as areas that they thought that their wording needed to be improved. And so, with that, I would ask for the adoption. Thank you.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: You've heard the closing. The question before the body is the adoption of AM1188. All those in favor vote aye; all those opposed vote nay. Record.
CLERK: 26 ayes, 0 nays, Mr. President, on the adoption of the Select File amendment.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: The amendment's adopted. Senator Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I move the advancement of LB 813 to E & R for engrossing.
SPEAKER KRISTENSEN: Question before the body is the readvancement of LB 813 to E & R for engrossing. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed say nay. It is readvanced. Further items on the bill, Mr. Clerk?
CLERK: I have nothing further on the bill, Mr. President.
3692