Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/19/2021 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB169 | |
| SB19 | |
| HB169 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 19, 2021
1:35 p.m.
1:35:38 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Tim Lamkin, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens; Kris Curtis,
Legislative Auditor, Alaska Division of Legislative Audit.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Corey Aist, Teacher, Anchorage Education Association,
Anchorage; Jane Gray, Self, Anchorage; Don Gray, Former
Member of Alaska Board of Education, Fairbanks; Tim Doran,
President, Fairbanks School Board, Fairbanks; Patrick
Pillai, Executive Director, Special Education Service
Agency; Heidi Teshner, Director, Finance and Support
Services, Department of Education and Early Development.
SUMMARY
HB 169 APPROP: EDUCATION; PUPIL TRANSPORTATION
HB 169 was REPORTED out of committee with ten "do
pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation"
recommendation.
SB 19 EXTEND SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICE AGENCY
SB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 169
"An Act making appropriations for public education and
transportation of students; and providing for an
effective date."
1:36:55 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
COREY AIST, TEACHER, ANCHORAGE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. He shared information about his teaching
career in Alaska. He reported that the school year had been
unlike any other and educators had continued to adapt as
they supported students and families in online and face-to-
face learning environments. He stressed the importance of
the stability provided by the legislation. He shared that
he had watched over the years as early career educators
were sometimes laid off in May. During those times he had
personally reassured younger colleagues that the state was
likely to restore funding and that they would have a job in
the fall. He reported that unfortunately many of those
teachers had found jobs out of state. He stressed that
recruitment was always a big issue. He remarked it was hard
to lose committed, enthusiastic educators when there was an
easy remedy. He noted the current remedy was HB 169.
Mr. Aist spoke about the importance of stability. He stated
that legislators' efforts could either support or hinder
students' success. He thanked Representative Rasmussen for
her suggestion of forward funding. He relayed educators
were exhausted and it had been a tough year. He stated that
the early forward funding would be a signal of support that
the legislature played an important role in the effort. He
thanked the committee and encouraged the advancement of the
bill.
1:41:18 PM
JANE GRAY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared
that she had been a teacher in the Anchorage School
District for 31 years. She echoed testimony from the
previous speaker. She highlighted the disruptiveness caused
by uncertainty of job security. She shared students and
teachers got shuffled when principals were uncertain about
what their staffing would be in the fall. For at risk
students the situation was an additional trauma that could
be avoided. She supported separating education funding from
the operating budget and passing the bill early in order
for teachers, students, and parents to know what to expect
in terms of funding. She thanked Vice-Chair Ortiz for
bringing the bill forward.
1:43:31 PM
DON GRAY, FORMER MEMBER OF ALASKA BOARD OF EDUCATION,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. He shared that he was a former member of the
Alaska State Board of Education. He thanked Vice-Chair
Ortiz for bringing the proposal forward. He thanked
Representative Rasmussen for recommending the forward
funding aspect of the legislation that would create
additional stability. He thanked Representative LeBon for
his support for early funding and for his service on the
Fairbanks School Board in the past. He thought education
funding should be kept separate from the more complicated
operating budget. He stressed that the current times were
challenging and without precedent. He remarked that the
operating budget may be slowed down due to uncertainties
about the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding. He
believed waiting for clarification would be detrimental to
education. He emphasized that the state's responsibility
for education was one of the few things in the state
constitution. He reiterated his support for the bill and
keeping education funding separate from the operating
budget.
1:47:42 PM
TIM DORAN, PRESIDENT, FAIRBANKS SCHOOL BOARD, FAIRBANKS
(via teleconference), thanked committee members for the
bill and their support of the bill. He was in favor of
separating the education budget from the rest of the
operating budget in order to provide funding certainty. He
shared that Fairbanks had completed its draft budget and it
was currently under consideration by the borough assembly
for the local contribution. He reported that the school
board had taken a conservative, cautious approach. He
understood that the governor had indicated support for
fully funding a flat Base Student Allocation (BSA). He
stated that until the state budget was approved, there was
a certain amount of uncertainty. He shared that early
notification on the funding amount made a difference in
terms of district planning.
Mr. Doran reported that COVID-19 had been a major hit in
the past year. The district was looking at COVID recovery
in the next year and the more funding certainty it had for
planning purposes, the better. He explained that the
district had to let tenured staff know whether they would
have jobs the following fall by May 15; non-tenured
teachers had to be notified by May 20. He shared that the
district had to start the process in the coming weeks. He
elaborated on the process. He stated that Fairbanks ended
up subsidizing transportation when it was not fully funded.
The district did not have the option going into the next
fiscal year. He heartily supported forward funding of
education. He explained that it had been very beneficial to
the district a couple of years back. He encouraged the
passage of the bill.
Co-Chair Foster recognized that Representative LeBon and
Representative Thompson had joined the meeting.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the committee may return to the
bill to address an amendment [note: the committee returned
to HB 169 at 2:20 p.m.].
Co-Chair Foster handed the gavel to Co-Chair Merrick.
1:54:30 PM
AT EASE
1:55:12 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 19(FIN)
"An Act relating to allocations for the special
education service agency; extending the special
education service agency; and providing for an
effective date."
1:55:28 PM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, introduced the
legislation. He communicated Senator Stevens' appreciation
of the bill hearing. He shared that the bill was an
opportunity to recognize an agency that did a large amount
with very little. He explained that the Special Education
Service Agency (SESA) was a community of people providing a
unique set of services for severely disadvantaged youth. He
stated there was trust and respect for the agency's work
that involved helping many schools, students, and families.
He noted the subject area was fairly sensitive and required
significant compassion, patience, grace, and love. The bill
would extend the SESA sunset to 2029 and adjusted the
agency's funding formula to keep it whole over the next
eight years. He reported that the latest audit was
constructive and illuminated SESA's success and efficacy.
He detailed that the SESA director was available online and
the legislature's auditor was available in person to speak
about the findings.
Mr. Lamkin reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1: AS 14.30.650 is amended to increase the
funding component for SESA, from an existing rate of
$18.65 to $23.13 times the number of students in the
state in average daily membership.
Section 2: AS 44.66.010(a)(6) Extends the sunset date
for SESA to June 30, 2029.
Section 3: Provides for a retroactive effective date
in the event the bill doesn't pass before June 30,
2021.
Section 4: Makes the funding component described in
Section 1 effective July 1, 2021.
Section 5: Provides for an immediate effective date
upon its passage.
1:58:04 PM
Representative Carpenter asked why there was a change from
the existing rate from $18.65 to $23.13.
Mr. Lamkin answered that SESA's caseload had increased
substantially with flat funding and flat staffing levels.
He relayed that an upcoming PowerPoint presentation would
explain the issue more thoroughly.
Representative LeBon asked if the rate had been locked at
$18.65 for quite some time.
Mr. Lamkin replied that the rate had been set at $18.65 at
the time of the last audit in 2013. Prior to that it had
been 15 years since the last increase.
1:59:25 PM
PATRICK PILLAI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SPECIAL EDUCATION
SERVICE AGENCY (via teleconference), provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "SESA: Special Education Service Agency
Introduction" (copy on file). He shared that he had joined
SESA in 1994 as a deaf education specialist. He reviewed
the presentation with prepared remarks beginning on slide
2:
This is the homepage of SESA's website. It provides
online access to program services and resources, a
lending library, online professional development, e-
modules, and an easy process for school districts to
submit online referrals for SESA service. The agency's
mission reflects a focus on addressing the unique
special education needs of students, parents, and
teachers across Alaska's 54 school districts.
Mr. Pillai moved to slide 3:
The statute establishing SESA addresses technical
assistance and service to students with low incidence
disabilities. Low incidence disabilities are defined
as occurring in less than one percent of the total
population. The rarity of the disability often means
specialized services are not normally available in the
school district. SESA affords such sites access to a
specialist with an endorsement in a particular
disability area in addition to other resources.
2:01:05 PM
Mr. Pillai turned to slide 4:
SESA's logic model captures the design of process to
deliver specialized services to parents, schools, and
school districts. The intent is to address the gap via
solutions that promote availability of SESA's service
through on-site and distance support. This approach
creates broad participant training to address staff
turnover and promises collaboration and networking
amongst teachers and paraprofessionals. This in turn
reduces isolation and ultimately provides retention of
teachers especially in rural remote areas of the
state.
Mr. Pillai addressed technical assistance on slide 5:
The continuum of services includes observations,
assessments, educational interventions, modeling of
educational strategies, in-service training, assistive
technology, and many more pertinent activities based
on requests from the child's educational team members.
Specialists also work with vendors to troubleshoot
assistive technology when teachers call with
complaints of device non-functionality.
Mr. Pillai turned to slides 6 and 7:
In addition to specialist evaluation, the SESA
management system is designed to collect data on
various aspects of agency activity. Metrics focus on
mission-centric activities such as site travel,
creation of educational materials, training and in-
services, and writing of student service reports. Data
is analyzed to understand variables impacting service
and the SESA budget.
SESA's database allows us to run reports of agency
productivity. The slide captures activities of
technical assistance, number of schools and districts
served, number of trainings conducted on-site and via
distance delivery, and an analysis of expenses.
2:03:08 PM
Mr. Pillai advanced to slide 8 and spoke about the
customized management system:
This slide is a visual example of the customized
management system SESA designed to ensure data-driven
decision making. Individual reports provide data on
specialist activity allowing for measurement of
productivity; number of reports completed with an
agency timeframe of 10 working days; schools and sites
requesting service; active student caseloads by
district, location, and school etcetera.
Mr. Pillai reviewed slide 9:
Legislative audits and the program component of annual
public audits run tests of compliance with regard to
process and procedure. This section of the database
was created in response for specific data and with
feedback from auditors. Following a recommendation of
the SESA board to go green, SESA management worked to
eliminate paper files. All of SESA's student record
keeping is now electronic. The compliance element of
the SESA database drives quarterly compliance reviews.
Mr. Pillai turned to slide 10:
Slide 10 captures in red the number of students
attending Alaska's schools in any given year between
2011 and 2020. The solid blue line captures the
steadily increasing number of students on SESA's low
incidence caseload. High turnover of staff in many
districts often drives the need for repeated trainings
for new staff, especially first-year teachers who may
be encountering any given disability for the first
time.
Mr. Pillai moved to slide 11:
Slide 11 is a history of SESA fund balance from 2013
and projected to 2023. The cycle captures low funds at
the end of a sunset cycle, in this case 2013, higher
funds at the middle of the cycle, and trending to
lower fund balance at the end of the cycle as a result
of the increase in cost. SESA's last funding increase
was in 2013. At the end of [FY] 22, factoring for cost
increase, we anticipate using $578,000 from fund
balance. This is a result of the impact of the CPI
index increase of 6.3 percent over the last eight
years.
Mr. Pillai looked at the fund balance on slide 12:
Slide 12 illustrates SESA's projected withdrawals from
fund balance in fiscal year 2022 moving into complete
deficit in fiscal year 2025. SESA utilizes a cashflow
of roughly $400,000 for day-to-day expenses. SESA
revenues, annual support grant, and LID activity
occurring between the initial grant award and
disbursement of funds at a later date. Grants operate
with an initial upfront award of roughly 25 percent of
the grant total and thereafter are reimbursed upon
submission of receipts for qualified grant expenditure
post the activity.
Mr. Pillai moved to slide 13 and discussed a proposed 24
percent funding increase:
Slide 13 is the projection of the 24 percent proposed
increase to SESA funding through Senate Bill 19. The
bill would increase the current $18.65 times the
number of students in the average daily membership in
the prior fiscal year to $23.13. This would
effectively fund SESA without interruption of services
to families and school districts through June 30,
2029, the end of the period of reauthorization.
Mr. Pillai addressed the recently completed legislative
audit on slide 14:
The recently completed legislative audit concurs that
SESA meets the needs of students with low incidence
disabilities, provides professional development
opportunities to teachers and paraprofessionals,
provides special education resources to parents and
school districts, and concludes with the
recommendation for an eight-year legislative
reauthorization.
Mr. Pillai relayed that he was happy to answer any
questions.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Pillai for SESA's hard work
with special needs students.
2:07:51 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked to hear a review of the recent
legislative audit.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, reported that the Division of
Legislative Audit conducted a review of SESA dated April
2020 (copy on file). She began the presentation with the
background information section on page 5 of the audit. She
read from prepared remarks:
SESA was created to help Alaskan school districts
provide special education services to individuals with
a low incidence disability. A low incidence disability
occurs in less than 1 percent of the national school-
aged population and the disabilities are more severe
in nature and require specialized education
intervention. SESA was established as a nonprofit
organization whose governing board is the Governor's
Council on Disabilities and Special Education, which
is organizationally housed within the Department of
Health and Social Services; however, its primary
service, its low incidence outreach program is
budgeted and funded through the Department of
Education and Early Development. This funding is
independent of the intensive needs funding that a
district may otherwise receive. SESA's funding
provides additional financial support to help ensure
students affected by low incidence disabilities
receive a free and appropriate public education that
is required by state and federal laws.
SESA's services are available to districts whose low
incidence special education needs occur infrequently,
making it difficult for the district to serve the low
number of students in need of a particular service.
SESA recruits, trains, and retains education
specialists to provide technical assistance and
training to parents, students, and district staff
without regard to the state. The number and location
of students served by SESA you will see in a map on
page 8. That shows that as of February 2020 there were
335 students served in 48 school districts. You will
also see that information broken out on page 27 in a
separate table, which breaks out the number of
students served by a low incidence disability
category.
Report conclusions begin on page 11. Overall, the
audit concludes that SESA served the public's interest
by assisting school districts and providing students
affected by low incidence disabilities an education to
meet the children's unique needs and by providing
opportunities to enhance school district teachers' and
paraprofessionals' capabilities and by providing
resources. We are recommending an eight-year
extension, which is the maximum allowed for in
statute. As part of the audit, we did send a survey to
school district special education directors in all 51
school districts. We received a 59 percent response
rate and in general the school district special
education directors viewed SESA services, staff
availability and their expertise favorably. Those
questions and responses can be found in Appendix C to
the audit.
As already discussed, on page 13 we do discuss their
statutory funding formula and how it is $18.65
multiplied by the states average daily membership,
again, set in 2013. Before that it was set 14 years
earlier. That has not changed; however, the caseload
has increased by 63 percent during the last 8 years.
We did find that SESA's education specialists serving
certain categories were experiencing high caseloads
and as of February 2020 the agency had three education
specialist vacancies.
2:11:45 PM
Ms. Curtis shared that the agency had one recommendation
beginning on page 18. The audit recommended SESA's
executive director implement written procedures to ensure
the reclassification of a student's referred disability was
adequately supported and communicated to school district
personnel. She detailed auditors reviewed 40 case files and
found five students' disabilities as identified in the
referral form from the school districts had been
reclassified by an education specialist and had not found
any documentation in the file regarding the reason for
reclassification. Additionally, in four of the five cases
there had been no visible communication back to the school
district about the reclassification. Auditors believed a
simple administrative fix should not be too much trouble to
accomplish. She relayed that the board chair and the DHSS
and DEED commissioners agreed with the report conclusions
and the recommendation.
2:12:43 PM
Representative Wool looked at the map on page 8 showing
school districts and number of students. He listed
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau and asked if the program
did not serve large school districts by design.
Ms. Curtis replied in the affirmative. She detailed there
was a threshold. When a school district reached ten in a
specific category, SESA worked with the district to
transition away from SESA services to make sure the
district hired its own specialists given SESA's limited
resources. She added that there were some students in those
categories, but much fewer than in other locations.
Representative Wool asked if statute designated that SESA
serve school districts with less than ten students [in a
particular category] requiring intervention.
Ms. Curtis answered that there was no statutory guidance.
The prior sunset audit had found that some type of criteria
was needed to specify when school districts needed to
absorb students. She explained that school districts
received special education intensive needs funding. She
elaborated that SESA was in place to serve districts with
needs in such a low number that the district did not have
the services in place to address them.
2:14:27 PM
Representative Rasmussen referenced page 8 and asked if
multiple disabilities was a combination of one of the other
six listed disabilities. She asked if there were any
unlisted disabilities.
2:15:18 PM
AT EASE
2:16:14 PM
RECONVENED
Ms. Curtis pointed to the definition of multiple
disabilities on page 7; the definition listed out the
different combinations that qualified a person for the
classification.
HEIDI TESHNER, DIRECTOR, FINANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via
teleconference), was available to present the fiscal note,
OMB Component Number 2735. She stated that the bill would
increase SESA's funding multiplier from $18.65 to $23.13
multiplied by the average daily membership (ADM) from the
prior fiscal year. She elaborated that the governor's FY 22
budget request included a $2.4 million projected grant for
SESA based on the statutory calculation. She detailed it
had been determined by multiplying the FY 21 projected ADM
of 128,923.91 times the $18.65. Based on the increased
multiplier and the final FY 21 ADM count finalized in March
2021, the amended FY 22 SESA grant was $2,937,900
(determined by multiplying the final ADM of 127,015.30
times $23.13). The bill reflected an increase of $533,500.
She noted the extension would carry out through June 2029
and DEED would adjust the budget annually based on the
statutory calculation.
SB 19 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:19:48 PM
AT EASE
2:19:56 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 169
"An Act making appropriations for public education and
transportation of students; and providing for an
effective date."
2:20:03 PM
Co-Chair Foster communicated there were no amendments to be
considered.
Co-Chair Merrick MOVED to REPORT HB 169 out of committee
with individual recommendations.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED for discussion. He
acknowledged the importance of the conversation on early
funding of education. He stated that without a [budget]
committee substitute (CS), the committee was further
justifying the need to early fund education due to the lack
of a budget. He thought the committee was holding the rest
of the state budget hostage while it acted on one component
of the budget. He believed it was highly inappropriate to
send the bill out of committee without any context of how
it would be received within the rest of the budget. He
thought a conversation about early funding should be a part
of the conversation within the context of the budget as a
whole.
Representative Carpenter stated it was a bad precedent to
pick one component of the budget and send it forward for
discussion. He highlighted that the previous year, most of
the budget had been finished within 90 days. He stressed it
was in the committee's power to finish the budget, which
would avoid a discussion of early funding for education. He
did not know what the delay was in terms of receiving a CS
that would put education in context with all of the other
important funding items for the coming year. He opined that
piecemealing the budget was inappropriate, unprofessional,
poor management, and set a bad precedent. He did not
believe HB 169 should be sent from committee without seeing
the rest of the budget.
2:23:09 PM
Representative Josephson believed HB 169 was a good bill.
He remarked that he had been in Juneau for special session
in the past in most months of the year. He underscored the
possibility the legislature could be in Juneau in June
without a budget. He had experienced the situation several
times. He stated the statutory non-retention letters
required the education funding carveout [from the rest of
the budget] in order to preserve continuity for educators,
administrators, and staff. He referenced the [budget] CS
and believed it was understood that the legislature wanted
a say on how $1.1 billion [in federal funds] was
appropriated. He believed it was part and parcel the reason
for some delay. He noted that the governor had just
released his own version of the bill. He asked why the
legislature should be ahead of the governor. He stated that
the money would have to be spent in one fashion or another
and he believed it made perfect sense to do so via HB 169.
2:24:59 PM
Representative Rasmussen thought the bill was appropriate.
She recognized the timing was slightly wonky due to the 30-
day delay with organization [in the House]. She stated that
with Alaska ranking close to the bottom in many student
outcomes, she did not believe the state could afford to
risk losing any more good teachers due to fiscal
uncertainty and pink slips going out unnecessarily. She
highlighted the constitutional and statutory obligation and
formula for funding K-12 education. She remarked that the
issue was not up for a lot of debate until the statutory
BSA law was changed. She had not seen any bills introduced
in the current session that would change the formula. She
opined that until the legislature did something else, HB
169 was incredibly appropriate and the right thing to do
for teachers and students. She spoke about the need for
stability and retention of talented teachers. She pointed
out that teachers could go other places with more
certainty. She believed it was not professional for the
state to put districts in the position of sending pink
slips to staff every year. She supported the bill.
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Edgmon had joined
the meeting.
Representative Wool supported the bill. He shared that
before he had run for the legislature, the issue of pink
slips and delays had come up for his district. He remarked
that because the district did not receive funding at the
right time it had been forced to send out pink slips. He
noted it was done frequently. He believed it was
unprofessional. He stressed the importance of holding onto
valued teachers. He had heard many stories of teachers
leaving. He referenced public testimony earlier in the day
about teachers receiving pink slips. He remarked that some
teachers endured the situation several times but after
awhile they decided it was enough. He believed the bill
communicated that the legislature valued teachers and
valued them enough to put them out front of the budget
process. He agreed education should be and was in the
budget and was mandated by the constitution. He remarked
that for various reasons the budget was not passed in a
timely manner, which was not in any one individual's
control. He supported getting the education funding out
ahead. He stated the funding was fairly formulaic with a
BSA and predicted number of students. He noted it could be
adjusted later. He believed the legislature should get the
majority of the funding out immediately to avoid the
sending of pink slips. He stated that teachers had enough
trouble and stress in the past couple of years. He
underscored that adding more stress was preventable. He
supported moving forward with the legislation.
2:28:55 PM
Representative Edgmon apologized that he had been in
another meeting. He believed it should be mandatory for the
legislature to pass the education budget early every year.
He believed eight out of ten teachers in Alaska came from
out-of-state. He detailed that the absence of a budget put
teachers in a position where they did not know if they had
a job and they had to decide whether to relocate back to
their home state or elsewhere. He strongly supported the
bill.
2:29:50 PM
Co-Chair Foster voiced his support for the legislation. He
stated that early funding of education had been done in the
past. He highlighted that the bill followed the formula and
did not make any increases. He understood the argument that
education funding should be put in context of the larger
budget. He believed the argument for including education
funding with the rest of the budget would be stronger if
the legislature was making increases. He reasoned that
because no changes were being made, the benefit of early
funding outweighed the cost. He referred to the statutory
deadline for layoff notices. Additionally, there was the
extraordinary circumstance of the forthcoming federal ARPA
funding the legislature had to determine how to incorporate
in the operating budget. He stated that the situation had
slowed the process down. He did not believe schools should
have to feel the brunt of the situation.
Representative Carpenter remarked that the hearing on the
previous bill [SB 19] indicated an increase in funding for
SESA [Special Education Service Agency]. He reasoned it
meant the legislature was increasing funding for education.
He did not know whether other areas in education would be
increased because he did not have a budget to reference. He
understood that forward funding or early funding of
education improved the ability of subordinate or follow-on
agencies to do their budgets; however, the committee did
not have a budget to reference for context. He asked when
the committee would see a [budget] CS. He underscored that
someone was making a decision to put federal funding on top
of state funding in a budget. He assumed it was the reason
for the delay. He remarked that an alternative was to have
two separate bills. He thought one bill with state and
federal funding combined would be hard to understand.
Co-Chair Foster replied that he had hoped to have a CS
before the committee the previous Monday. He shared that
the Legislative Finance Division had relayed it could
provide some suggestions on what the legislature could do
in using some of the ARPA funds. He elaborated that the
governor had ended up rolling out his bill that had come
out earlier in the day. He stated there were many
complexities in the process and he had told people it would
not be easy. He was trying to make the best out of a
difficult situation in terms of getting a CS out as soon as
possible, while trying to determine how to manage the ARPA
funds.
2:33:21 PM
Representative Rasmussen believed the SESA funds fell
outside the BSA and pupil transportation funds. She stated
her understanding that HB 169 was the statutory required
formula for the BSA and pupil transportation only.
Vice-Chair Ortiz believed the SESA funding was not related
to the funding formula bill before the committee.
Co-Chair Foster agreed. He spoke to Representative
Carpenter's point. He stated that the SESA funding did not
increase the BSA formula. He explained that the release of
a CS had been slowed down by the effort to include some of
the ARPA funding.
2:35:18 PM
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 169 was REPORTED out of committee with ten "do pass"
recommendations and one "no recommendation" recommendation.
2:35:59 PM
AT EASE
2:36:07 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
morning.
ADJOURNMENT
2:36:38 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:36 p.m.