Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/26/2019 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| K-12 Education Funding Considerations | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 26, 2019
9:00 a.m.
9:00:37 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
David Teal, Director, Legislative Finance Division; Michael
Partlow, Fiscal Analyst for Education, Legislative Finance
Division; Senator Cathy Giessel; Senator Mia Costello;
Senator Chris Birch; Senator Gary Stevens; Senator Shelley
Hughes.
SUMMARY
^K-12 EDUCATION FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS
9:01:29 AM
Co-Chair Stedman relayed that the committee would be
discussing the governor's proposed education budget and its
effects on school districts. The committee would discuss
the local contribution, the cap issue, and the federal
funding issues. He commented that the education budget was
complicated. He thought it would be beneficial to go into
more detail to understand the federal disparity test,
spending caps, and local contribution issues.
Co-Chair Stedman continued his introductory remarks. Co-
Chair von Imhof had been working on different proposals and
options available to consider as a committee. Senator
Hoffman had been in charge of the Senate Finance
Subcommittee. The committee had asked the legislative
budget director to present the governor's proposed budget.
9:04:07 AM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, stated
that the slides were mostly prepared by the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED). He thought the
issue being considered was how did the governor's plan to
prorate the K-12 formula impact voluntary local
contributions. He reminded that in addition to state aid,
school districts received local government funds and
federal funds.
Mr. Teal explained that there were two types of local
contributions: required (based on property tax values) and
not required. His presentation would disregard required
local contributions, which would remain the same under any
interpretation of the law. He discussed voluntary local
contributions, which normally were limited to 23 percent of
"basic need." He clarified that "basic need" was the
formula for the count of students affected by a number of
multipliers including school size and geographic
differentials, among other things. The adjusted student
count was multiplied by the Base Student Allocation (BSA).
He informed that that in order to keep basic need within
the federal disparity test, voluntary local contributions
were limited to 23 percent of basic need.
Mr. Teal noted that DEED made it clear that it believed
voluntary local contributions must be prorated if the
formula itself was prorated. He thought the idea made
sense, but it was unfortunate that the law wasn't clear on
the issue. Basic need was prorated, and voluntary local
effort was less clear. The Anchorage School District had a
legal opinion that said voluntary local contributions would
not be prorated if the formula was prorated. He had asked
for a legal opinion and referenced a memorandum from
Legislative Legal Services (copy on file). He summarized
that legal services was leaning towards opining that
voluntary legal contributions were not prorated.
9:08:13 AM
Mr. Teal detailed noted that federal funds came in the form
of impact aid. The impact aid and voluntary local
contributions were tied together by a disparity test, which
he would discuss further in the presentation.
Mr. Teal spoke to the document "Document 1: Governor's FY20
K-12 Funding Proposal" (copy on file). He pointed out that
the formula would have provided $1.8 billion in formula
funding. Then next column over showed the governor's plan,
which would use prorating and reduce spending by $269
million. He noted that there was another $30 million that
was available as additional formula-type aid on top of the
formula. If the $30 million was also repealed as the
governor had requested, education funding would be down by
roughly $300 million.
9:09:43 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for greater detail with regard to
the status of the proposed FY 20 budget.
Mr. Teal thought it was well worth explaining that
normally, FY 20 funding would be in front of the
legislature while going through the FY 20 budget process.
He recounted that the previous year, the legislature had
funded FY 20 education and added $30 million, which many
people referred to as "forward-funding." It was not
technically forward-funding, which would imply that funds
from FY 19 were set aside for spending in FY 20. Rather,
the $30 million was funding with a delayed effective date.
The legislature passed the law, and used FY 20 money for
education, not FY 19 money.
Mr. Teal continued his remarks. He recounted that the
governor had not vetoed the funding, and the time for
vetoes was long past. Unless the legislature revised the
previous year's law, the funding for FY 20 would stand at
the full formula funding plus $30 million. The governor
requested that the full funding and the $30 million in
forward funding be repealed and replaced by roughly 75
percent of the formula with zero additional funding.
Mr. Teal considered how it would affect voluntary local
contributions if the legislature accepted the governor's
proposal, repealed the previous year's appropriation,
opened education back up, and prorated. He made the point
that school districts may get a double whammy when state
funding was cut, which could also reduce local
contributions. At a time when local communities would step
up to replace lost state funds, the communities would be
limited in the ability to do so.
9:13:09 AM
Senator Olson referenced Mr. Teal's comments about the
limitation of local government to increase contributions.
He asked if local governments would be limited or barred.
Mr. Teal did not know if local contributions would be
prorated. If the contributions were prorated, DEED
indicated $51.5 million could be lost district by district.
He referenced the document "Document 2: Projected FY2020
Local Effort" (copy on file). He noted that the amount was
the maximum that all communities could lose. It was
unlikely that voluntary local contributions would be at the
maximum.
Mr. Teal used the example of Anchorage, which had an
allowable voluntary contribution of $102 million. If the
formula and the voluntary contributions were prorated,
Anchorage would only be allowed to contribute $82 million.
He explained that Anchorage was funding to the cap; if
voluntary contributions were prorated, the school districts
would not receive the same amount of funds.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if there were school districts that
were so far under the cap as to not be affected.
Mr. Teal affirmed that there were a number of districts
that were way under the cap. He noted that the Regional
Educational Attendance Areas (REAAs) did not contribute at
all locally and would be unaffected.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the meaning of REAA.
Mr. Teal explained that an REAA was a Regional Education
Attendance Area, which was essentially a school district in
an unorganized borough that was also not in an organized
community.
Co-Chair Stedman thought there was a significant difference
between organized regions that payed property tax and areas
that did not.
9:17:08 AM
Senator Hoffman commented on the three appropriations,
which if kept in the budget, were not subject to veto by
the governor. He asked about the $30 million in one-time
funding, and asked Mr. Teal's opinion on if the legislature
decided the reduce the amount to $20 million. He wondered
if a changed appropriation would be subject to the
governor's veto and asked about options for the
legislature.
Mr. Teal thought a legal opinion might be needed. He
thought if the previous year's statute was repealed, then
any changes would be subject to veto. He pondered that a
new appropriation for a different amount would be subject
to veto. He thought that if the legislature changed the
previous year's statute, then the governor could not veto
the entire line, as it would return the line to $30
million. He suggested the legislature get a legal opinion
if it wanted to do something other than the governor had
done.
Mr. Teal discussed the document "Document 6: LFD Projected
Local Effort" (copy on file). He referenced Co-Chair
Stedman's question about some districts exceeding the cap
and pointed out the column "DISTRICTS EXCEEDING Cap."
9:20:47 AM
AT EASE
9:21:12 AM
RECONVENED
Mr. Teal continued to discuss Document 6. He pointed out
that the previous slide had shown that the maximum
voluntary local contribution (if prorated) would be about
$51 million. The second column of the document showed the
amount that would be affect by the cap. The bold numbers
showed which cities were at or near the cap. He discussed
the amounts districts could have to reduce local
contributions. He reminded that the numbers were
approximations. If state funding were to be reduced and
local entities had to increase funding, local contributions
would bump up against a newly decreased cap.
Co-Chair Stedman considered Sitka and thought the numeric
did not change. He thought Mr. Teal was saying that Sitka
couldn't make up the funding difference, since it was
already funding to the cap.
Mr. Teal stated that Sitka would be unable to contribute
its current contribution if the formula was prorated.
Ketchikan had some headroom and would not be affected
unless it wanted to make up for lost state money and
contribute more than $1.6 million. He reiterated that the
numbers were approximations since the documents used FY 19
numbers and it was unknown what districts would do in FY
20.
9:25:19 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof thought that Document 6 was important.
She looked at the second column of numbers and thought
there was about $56.4 million of available headroom. She
thought that theoretically there was headroom to
accommodate some type of reduction. She estimated that $100
for the BSA equated to about $30 million in funding. She
asked about how to translate the $56 million into the BSA.
Mr. Teal stated that Co-Chair von Imhof had estimated
correctly. He stated it was not the BSA that was at issue.
If the BSA increased, local contributions went up; and the
inverse was also true. He thought the problem came in as
several districts were at the cap. He noted that the $56
million total in the second column was the sum of negative
and positive numbers and included about $21 million of
funds that were projected to be capped. He observed that
Fairbanks was highly unlikely to be affected by prorating
and could be contributing substantially more to the school
district, as could anyone in the column with a positive
number. He expressed that the headroom calculation on the
document was not as clear as one might wish.
9:28:53 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if the cap could potentially
remain unaffected if the BSA remained intact in statute but
education was simply underfunded. She thought the
administration had suggested underfunding.
Mr. Teal stated that Co-Chair von Imhof's scenario would
make a big difference. If the BSA was reduced there was no
question that voluntary local contributions would also be
reduced. There would be no risk of breaking the disparity
test. He thought that DEED was assuming that reducing state
contributions would result in a proration of local effort,
which he did not think was clear. He thought that if you
prorated the formula and it turned out voluntary local
contributions were not prorated, then the disparity test
would be examined.
9:31:15 AM
Senator Micciche asked if it was fair to say that if a
district contributed 75 percent or less of the cap, the
local contribution would not be affected; while
contributing 75 percent or more of the cap would mean a
district was affected. He cautioned that the document only
included cash contributions; and did not include in-kind
contributions, which were also included under the cap. He
mentioned the $11 million in building maintenance,
insurance, custodial services, utilities, and audits that
Kenai Peninsula Borough contributed to the school district.
MICHAEL PARTLOW, FISCAL ANALYST FOR EDUCATION, LEGISLATIVE
FINANCE DIVISION, agreed that the calculations on the
document did not include in-kind contributions. He thought
it was worth mentioning that the calculations on the sheet
were done at a time when the contribution for school
district was not finally set. Later in the slide deck there
was more up to date material.
Senator Micciche thought it was important to note that many
local communities contributed in-kind, and it might be
possible that the in-kind contribution would hit the cap.
Mr. Teal showed the document "Document 3: FY19 Local
Effort" (copy on file). He thought that the material on the
slides had already been covered.
9:35:14 AM
AT EASE
9:35:36 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman thought the slide was representing the FY
19 budget if the $20 million proposed in the supplemental
budget was taken out.
9:36:20 AM
AT EASE
9:36:35 AM
RECONVENED
Mr. Teal noted that there were two slides that looked much
the same: one with the $20 million, and one without. He
noted that the amount of voluntary local contributions was
determined in part by the amount of basic need, which
included money that was distributed in the same way as the
formula even though it was outside the formula.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought there was good reason to focus
on Document 3. She stated that districts aside from
Anchorage, Denali, Juneau, and Skagway were shown as
funding under the cap (especially as shown without the $20
million in page 2). She noted that she had constituents
advocating for increased education funding and a BSA
increase. She pondered the local and state options if a
district was looking for more money. She saw there was room
under the funding cap under the "no $20 million" option on
page 2 of the document. She emphasized that the matter was
a policy issue. She acknowledged there could be unknown
challenges within school districts. She pondered the
choices that would have to be considered in a school
district if a BSA was reduced (whether through statute or
un-allocation).
Senator Bishop emphasized Co-Chair von Imhof's point and
did not believe that some rural communities could make up
the funding difference because of lack of a tax base.
9:40:23 AM
Senator Micciche did not disagree that districts needed to
weigh options if there was a funding reduction. He
reiterated that the committee needed to consider a list of
school funding including in-kind contributions. He
discussed the portion of funding below the cap and
considered a 25 percent reduction in the BSA payment; and
thought mathematically it did not work out.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for DEED to provide another document
with an additional column with in-kind expenses.
Mr. Teal thought that members had made good points. He
pointed out that while some communities had headroom under
the cap, the remainder of the governor's budget needed to
be considered. One part of the governors' proposal was to
eliminate school debt reimbursement. If the reimbursement
was eliminated, school districts would have difficulty
keeping funding stable without even increasing the funding
below the cap.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Teal to adjust the document to
include in-kind contributions and debt reimbursement
information.
Senator Wielechowski noted that the slide was for FY 19. He
pointed out that Anchorage was taxing at the cap, and if
the $20 million was not funded it would be short $1.3
million and be faced with a shortfall. He asked if he was
understanding the matter correctly.
Mr. Teal answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if Senator Wielechowski had been
referring to the $20 million in FY 19.
Senator Wielechowski answered "yes."
Mr. Teal pointed out that if the $20 million was not
distributed, a school district would be essentially in a
hole for its share.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the law of the land was for the
money to be dispersed, unless the law was changed.
Mr. Teal agreed.
9:43:50 AM
Senator Wielechowski noted that it was the middle of March
and the $20 million had not been disbursed. He said there
appeared to be an Alaska Supreme Court case directly on
point that indicated the governor had to disburse the
funds. He asked when the latest that Mr. Teal had seen the
state dispersed funds for education.
Mr. Teal stated that the law of the land (referred to by
Senator Wielechowski) was a court case that said the
governor could not withhold money that had been
appropriated by the legislature. He continued that in
theory, the funds should have been distributed to school
districts beginning July 1, 2018. He thought the department
withheld the funds assuming there would be a "true up" at
the end of the fiscal year when there was a second student
count. He thought the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
director had stated that the school districts should not
have expected or spent the funds. He recalled that several
school districts had testified to having expected the money
that was appropriated and, in many cases, having spent the
funds. He expanded that to not receive the funds would
cause many schools to spend reserves if they had them.
Mr. Teal continued to address Senator Wielechowski's
question. He stated that some schools did not have reserves
and could be in a position of over-spending or of reducing
spending during the last couple months of the year. He
stated that theoretically the governor had to distribute
the funds during the current fiscal year. He did not know
what the legislature could do to urge the governor to send
out the funds as early as possible. He suggested that there
could be intent added to the appropriations bill, or the
legislature could talk to the governor. He thought if the
legislature did not intend to repeal the $20 million as the
governor had requested, it may want to request that he
distribute the funds as soon as possible.
Co-Chair Stedman thought that unless the legislature took
affirmative action in an appropriation bill, the law would
stand and the governor had until the end of June to
disburse the funds.
Mr. Teal agreed.
9:46:58 AM
Senator Wilson asked for an updated list of school
districts' fund balances.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that the committee could ask for
help with the information. He thought there had been
comments made that there were significant reserves in some
districts. He thought each district would be different.
Mr. Teal thought he could get the requested information
from DEED. He thought the committee might want to have the
department come to committee and discuss reserves, in-kind
contributions, and school debt; and at the same time, it
could discuss why voluntary local contributions would be
prorated when legal opinions pointed in the other
direction.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that the committee had invited the
department and could encourage attendance in committee to
help with budget scenarios. He commented that the education
budget, along with the Department of Health and Social
Services, was one of the biggest challenges in the budget.
He lamented about the possibility of making decisions with
less information than could be had.
9:49:18 AM
Mr. Teal reviewed the document "Document 4: Disparity Test"
(copy on file):
https://education.alaska.gov/schoolfinance/foundationf
unding
The disparity test is an annual submittal from the
State of Alaska to the U.S. Department of
Education, Impact Aid Program, under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 as amended
by Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, section
7009 State Consideration of Payments in Providing
State Aid.
In General?
• A state may reduce state aid payments, as applicable
by law, when a district receives federal Impact Aid
revenues.
• A state must apply for recertification annually, not
later than 120 days prior to the next fiscal year
(end of February).
• In order to qualify for this provision the state
must demonstrate an equalized funding formula:
1. the highest per revenue district versus the
lowest per revenue district;
2. not more than a 25% disparity between
districts revenue per Adjusted Average Daily
Membership (AADM); and,
3. disregard the revenue per AADM above the 95th
percentile and below the 5th percentile per AADM.
Fiscal Year Disparity percentage
2012 19.31%
2013 19.37%
2014 21.40%
2015 22.58%
2016 22.40%
2017 22.32%
Mr. Teal noted that the slide brought up a complication in
the formula. The formula was such that state aid equaled
basic need, which was the BSA times the student count
multiplied by a number of factors. He continued that state
aid was basic need minus required local contributions,
minus 90 percent of federal deductible impact aid. He told
the committee to disregard required local contributions,
which would not change in any way due to the funding
controversy.
Mr. Teal continued his comments on Document 4. He explained
that the formula clearly said the state could reduce its
state aid by the amount of federal impact aid that was
deductible. The state must show that it had an equalized
formula, which was demonstrated by a disparity test. The
test ranked school districts in the order in the amount of
aid per AADM (adjusted student count). Without voluntary
local contributions, all districts would get nearly
identical amounts. It was only voluntary local
contributions (which varied from district to district) that
gave differences in funding at the local district level.
Mr. Teal continued to address Document 4. He discussed the
parameters of the disparity test. He questioned that
voluntary local contributions were pro-rated, there was no
additional risk of failing the disparity test because local
contributions would be limited. If the legal opinions were
correct and voluntary local contributions were not prorated
along with the formula, the state was almost certain to
fail the disparity test. He shared that the state would
lose federal aid (of about $82 million) if the test failed.
9:53:17 AM
Mr. Teal showed the document "Document 7: LFD Impact Aid
Percent of State Aid" (copy on file). He stated that the
federal deductible aid meant that the state formula could
not deduct the amount of federal money received by local
districts. He pointed out the third column from the right,
"Eligible Federal Impact AID." If the state failed the
disparity test, Anchorage would get to keep the $7.7
million, and the state would have to pay Anchorage $7
million because the federal impact aid was not deductible
if the disparity test was failed. In total, the state could
have to pay $82 million more than it currently paid.
Potentially, prorating the formula reduced cost by $300
million, but also increased costs by $82 million and did so
in an unfair way.
Mr. Teal pointed out that Anchorage, while it received a
lot of money, had impact aid as 2 percent of the budget. He
pointed out $11 million in Bering Strait, which was 36
percent of its budget. He explained that some districts
received a disproportionate amount of federal impact aid,
which was calculated by the amount of exempt property was
in the district. The communities with substantial federal
deductible aid would benefit a great deal by the scenario.
He noted that by in large the communities were rural.
Mr. Teal reiterated that if the state failed the disparity
test, it was for a minimum of three years, and it would
cost the state $82 million to $85 million each year the
test was failed. The cost was one of the dangers of
prorating the formula. If the law was interpreted so
districts must prorate voluntary local contributions, there
was no additional risk. Legal opinions suggested that it
was not the case and a district simply may be able to
increase its voluntary local contributions, causing the
entire state to fail the disparity test.
9:57:30 AM
Mr. Teal did not know whether the department could enforce
a voluntary local contribution amount by approving or
failing to approve a school district's budget. He closed by
saying there were other ways to reduce school funding. He
thought if reducing funding was a goal, prorating may be
the least desirable option because of the potential impact
on the federal deductible aid.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Teal to elaborate on other
options for reducing school funding.
Mr. Teal discussed reduction of school debt reimbursement,
which had a disproportionate impact on rural districts
because only urban districts had school debt reimbursement.
The mill rate could be increased, which would increase
required local contributions, but again it would impact
urban areas. He thought the fairest option would be
reducing the retirement aid paid on behalf of districts. He
reminded that the state payed everything over 12.56 percent
in the Teachers Retirement System (TRS), and the actual
contribution exceeded 30 percent. He did not suggest the
legislature should do so, but if the goal was to cut $100
million from education spending, reducing the state TRS
contribution would be much fairer than prorating. He
thought there could be other options.
Co-Chair Stedman commented on the complexity of Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and TRS issues.
10:00:15 AM
Senator Micciche asked if school bond debt reimbursement
counted as a local contribution under the cap, or if it was
disregarded.
Mr. Teal stated that the two issues were unrelated. School
bond debt reimbursement affected local contributions only
in the sense that if the state didn't reimburse districts
for school debt reimbursement, the local government had
less money available and then may have to reduce
contributions to school districts.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned defaults by bond-owners, which
could create complexities.
Co-Chair Stedman reiterated that the Senate Finance
Subcommittee on DEED was being led by Senator Hoffman, who
was working on the K-12 and University budgets. Co-Chair
von Imhof had been working on some other options for
consideration by the committee. He thought the next two
weeks would solidify the subcommittee. The committee would
be hearing presentations the following week on some options
being considered.
10:02:35 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof summarized the conversation and thought
there were several questions being generated by members.
She thought the purpose of the committee was to bring up
questions to ponder. She referenced Mr. Teal's remarks
about a legal opinion that was unclear. She wanted the
committee to avoid unintended consequences of its
decisions. The following week the committee would consider
a presentation by Mr. Mark Foster, a board member of the
Anchorage School District who had also served as the chief
financial officer. Mr. Foster had been doing research on
education looking at state and national data and would be
presenting his findings.
Co-Chair von Imhof continued that the committee was
considering research supporting small class sizes,
supporting effective teachers, encouraging home and
community support, and early and intermediate literacy. She
discussed three bills being considered by the committee: SB
79 pertaining to virtual education, SB 74 pertaining to
broadband, and SB 30 pertaining to a middle school model.
She emphasized the committee's aspiration to avoid
unintended fiscal consequences while supporting education
to increase student achievement across the state.
10:05:58 AM
Senator Hoffman thought that it was fortunate that the
legislature had passed education funding legislation the
previous year. He noted that the opportunity to address the
$10 million in additional funding in 2019 was signed into
law. The appropriation for education in 2020 had also been
signed into law. The $30 million increase for 2020 had also
been signed into law. He commented that the control (for
the most part) of the appropriations was in the hands of
the legislature and the involvement of the administration
had been bypassed by the signing of the three bills by
former Governor Bill Walker. He expressed concern about the
difficulty of budgeting for 2021 and considered that
whatever the legislature passed would be subject to a veto
pen. He thought a veto override was almost impossible as it
required 45 of 60 members to agree.
10:08:07 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought Co-Chair von Imhof and Senator
Hoffman had made good comments. He stated that the
legislature would be considering the effects (not only in
education) of a step-down approach. He pondered if it was
better to take large budget reductions in one year, or
phase it in over three or four years when trying to have
revenues match expenditures. He thought if the legislature
did not deal with the $30 million, there might be a steeper
decline in funds the following year.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed increasing student performance
while reducing spending. He considered if reductions could
be tied to achievement goals or net benefit.
Senator Bishop recounted that he had made a concerted
effort to bring back career and technical education (CTE)
when he served as commissioner of the Department of Labor
and Workforce Development. He had worked with DEED, the
University, and school districts. He discussed working to
improve graduation rates. He was concerned that CTE might
have to be cut.
10:11:21 AM
AT EASE
10:11:30 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman remarked on how many members of the Senate
were in the meeting.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the agenda for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
10:13:49 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:13 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 032619_Doc1_FY2020GovAmdK-12FundingReductions.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Education |
| 032619_Doc2_ProjectedFY2020LocalEffort.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Education |
| 032619_Doc3_Local2019BudgetCap.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Education |
| 032619_Doc4_1page slide Federal Disparity Test.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Education |
| 032619_Doc5_LegLegal_LocalContribution.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Education |
| 032619_Doc7_LFD_ImpactAid%ofStateAid.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Education |
| 032619_Doc6_LFD_FY20LocalEffort.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Education |