Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
02/23/2024 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 | |
| Overview: Department of Education and Early Development Fy25 Budget | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 270 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 268
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making capital appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations; making reappropriations;
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 270
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
FY25 BUDGET
1:37:26 PM
JOEL ISAAK, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced himself.
TAMA CARSON, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced herself.
DEENA BISHOP, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), shared that the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) was
currently looking at the potential impacts of the vote on
SB 140 that occurred the previous evening [the House voted
to increase the Base Student Allocation (BSA) by $680]. She
noted that the presentation would not include the changes
made in the previous evening, but she would follow up with
the exact details as there were several significant
changes.
Ms. Bishop introduced the PowerPoint presentation
"Department of Education and Early Development FY2025
Governor's Budget Overview" dated February 23, 2024 (copy
on file). She began on slide 2 and explained that DEED's
mission was to provide an excellent education to every
student, every day. The department's vision was that all
students would succeed in their education and shape
worthwhile and satisfying lives for themselves. She
explained that the vision was important because education
could not claim it was successful if students were not able
to contribute to society after leaving the public school
system.
Ms. Bishop continued to slide 3. She thought the statutory
duties of the department were laid out well in statute and
she would detail the responsibilities in the presentation.
The duties included establishing a school system and
administering public schools, which involved significant
contributions from the Board of Education and Early
Development (BEED).
Ms. Bishop continued on slide 4 and outlined the top five
strategic goals of the department. The priorities were as
follows:
1. Support all students to read at grade level by the
end of third grade.
2. Increase career, technical, and culturally relevant
education to meet student and workforce needs.
3. Close the achievement gap by ensuring equitable
educational rigor and resources.
4. Prepare, attract, and retain effective education
professionals.
5. Improve the safety and well-being of students
through school partnerships with families,
communities, and tribes.
Ms. Bishop advanced to slide 5 and detailed the agenda of
the presentation. The department would present an
organizational overview, division summaries, a high-level
overview of the budget changes for FY 25, and a high-level
overview of the average daily membership (ADM) of the
schools.
1:42:50 PM
Ms. Bishop continued to slide 6 which included a reference
list of acronyms commonly used by the department. She
turned the presentation over to her colleague.
Mr. Isaak continued on slide 7 and offered an explanation
of the department's organizational structure. He detailed
that BEED was at the top of the organizational structure
followed by the commissioner, Ms. Bishop, and two deputy
commissioner positions. One of the deputy positions was
held by Mr. Issak and the other was currently vacant. There
were also other commissions and boards within the
department which were listed on the slide.
Mr. Isaak continued to slide 8, which showed a DEED budget
organizational chart. He noted that the left side of the
slide focused on the instructional side of the department
and the right side focused on the financial side of the
department.
Mr. Isaak advanced to slide 9 and detailed the department's
organizational chart for commissions and boards. Included
on the slide were the Alaska State Council on the Arts
(ASCA), the Professional Teaching Practices Commission
(PTPC), and the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education (ACPE).
1:45:51 PM
Ms. Bishop continued on slide 10 which gave an overview of
the department's operating budget and position history. The
slide showed the FY 23 actuals through the projected FY 25
governor's amended budget. The middle column on the slide
showed the management plan for FY 24. In FY 25, the
projected budget total was about $1.8 billion; however, due
to the vote on SB 140, there would be some changes. The BSA
increase would grow the budget by about $176 million and
the correspondence adjustment would account for an increase
of $13.1 million. In combination with a couple of other
additions, the budget would increase by a total of $196
million.
Representative Galvin asked about the dotted green section
of the chart detailing the funds related to the COVID-19
pandemic within the governor's amended budget. She asked if
the funds were still spendable and whether the funds could
be carried over to the next year.
Ms. Bishop responded that the funds were spendable and were
already appropriated; however, the exact budgeted amount
was not yet determined. The funds could be spent until
September 30, 2024.
Ms. Bishop continued to slide 11 which showed the breakdown
of the FY 25 budget by category. She explained that the
expenditures in the grants category demonstrated the way in
which the money was distributed to school districts. The
district support for K-12 came primarily from the ADM fund
[and reflected the largest portion of the graph]. She
relayed that she would go further into other elements of
the budget and how the elements interacted with public
education overall. The second largest portion of the graph
was innovation and education excellence. The funds for
innovation and education excellence were particular to
different programs within the department.
1:51:55 PM
Representative Galvin thought that it seemed that the
budget aligned with the department's five strategic
priorities. She asked how the funding for the family
engagement priority was spent. She also wondered if the
early learning grants had grown over time.
Ms. Bishop replied that she would defer the question about
grants to her colleague for more detailed information. The
grants were funded through the innovation and education
excellence portion of the budget.
DEBORAH RIDDLE, DIVISION OPERATIONS MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference),
replied that there were several early learning grants that
had been regularly distributed to the districts in the
past. There was about $3.2 million in pre-kindergarten
grants that were distributed to a number of districts and
other partners. The Early Education Program (EEP) grant was
about $3 million and there was an additional $2.5 million
appropriated by the legislature that was awarded to
districts that did not receive the previous two grants. In
addition, $6.2 million was provided to the Head Start
Program (HSP) to help it meet its non-federal match as well
as $474,700 to the Parents as Teachers Program (PATP) and
$325,000 to the Best Beginnings Program (BBP).
Representative Galvin asked if the funding provided to HSP
was the full 20 percent federal match.
Ms. Bishop responded in the negative. She added that there
was a one-time $1.5 million grant also given to HSP. The
total was about 14 percent towards the federal match.
1:56:54 PM
Ms. Carson continued the presentation on slide 12. The
department's total FY 25 budget was approximately $1.7
billion and over the next few slides, she would break down
the total budget into categories. The first category was
the Executive Administration Division (EAD). The division
included the commissioner's office as well as BEED. The
division provided policy direction to the other divisions
as well as the school districts, schools, students,
parents, teachers, and department programs that increased
student achievement. The FY 25 budget for EAD totaled just
under $1.9 million, of which $1.1 million was unrestricted
general funds (UGF) and the rest was interagency receipts.
There were eight full-time positions and one non-permanent
position in the division. In FY 25, a new administrative
assistant II position within the commissioner's office was
added to help provide support for meetings, travel, and
other additional work in the commissioner's office and the
department.
Ms. Carson continued to slide 13 and the Division of
Finance and Support Services (DFSS), which was the largest
chunk of the department's funding and totaled approximately
$1.33 billion. The division administered the foundation
formula, pupil transportation funding, residential schools
funding, and school debt reimbursement, and provided
support for school district business offices. The school
facilities section oversaw school capital projects and
administered the major maintenance and school construction
grants. The child nutrition section administered the child
nutrition programs and any child or adult care centers. The
majority of UGF shown in the blue section of the graphs was
allocated to foundation funding and pupil transportation
funding. The grey section represented the federal receipts
which were mostly awarded by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the orange section was comprised of
"other" funds and was primarily the public school trust
fund.
Ms. Carson continued to slide 14 and detailed the Division
of Administrative Services (DAS), which provided internal
department services such as accounting, budget, information
technology, and human resources to support the entire
department. The budget components were administrative
services, EED state facilities rent, information services,
and the facility risk components. The budget for FY 25 was
$7.1 million and there were 24 full-time positions within
the division.
2:01:05 PM
AT EASE
2:03:08 PM
RECONVENED
Ms. Carson continued on slide 15 and relayed that the
Division of Innovation and Education Excellence (DIEE)
provided pre-kindergarten grants to promote student and
school achievement and teacher certification components.
The total FY 25 budget excluding the estimated carry-
forward federal COVID-19 funds was approximately $145.2
million. There were 70 full-time positions and six non-
permanent positions in the division. She reminded the
committee that there was a dashboard on DEED's website that
detailed the federal COVID-19 spending, showed how much
money each grantee and school district had been awarded,
and showed how much money had already been spent.
Representative Tomaszewski asked Ms. Carson to restate the
website information.
Ms. Carson replied that the information was on the DEED
website.
Mr. Isaak clarified that page 27 of the presentation
included a link to the website. There was a section on the
website that detailed the shaded green section under the FY
25 budget on slide 15. He explained that the section was
shaded because the funds were actively being distributed
and the website would show the most accurate information on
the uses of the funds.
Ms. Carson continued to slide 16 and explained that the
Alyeska Reading Academy and Institute (ARAI) supported
school districts and provided services for the successful
implementation of the Alaska Reads Act (ARA). The FY 25
budget totaled $5 million. There were seven full-time
positions and three non-permanent part-time positions
within ARAI.
Ms. Carson continued on slide 17 and relayed that the
budget for the Division of Libraries, Archives, and Museums
(DLAM) was comprised of library operations, museum
operations, archives, online library systems, and
maintenance for the Andrew P. Kashevaroff (APK) facilities.
She explained that the APK building in Juneau housed the
Alaska State Archives, State Library, and the Alaska State
Museum. The total operating budget for FY 25 was
approximately $11.8 million and the division had 48 full-
time position and one non-permanent part-time position.
2:07:34 PM
Co-Chair Johnson asked if the Broadband Assistance Grant
(BAG) that had been recently passed by the House was
included in the division.
Ms. Carson responded in the negative and explained that BAG
was housed within the libraries in the past, but it had
been transferred over to school facilities. She highlighted
that there was a line item on slide 17 showing that BAG had
been zeroed out.
Representative Josephson remarked that the governor had
vetoed funding for the Statewide Library Electronic Doorway
(SLED) and the Online with Libraries (OWL) programs a few
times in the past. He asked whether the SLED and OWL
programs were currently operating.
Mr. Isaak deferred the question to a colleague.
2:09:12 PM
DR. AMY PHILLIPS-CHAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LIBRARIES,
ARCHIVES, AND MUSEUMS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, responded that SLED funding was currently
offered through the Institute of Museum and Library
Services (IMLS) grant and was awarded annually. The Alaska
Library Network (ALN) partnered with the University of
Alaska (UA) Fairbanks in order to offer the SLED program.
She explained that library staff participated in SLED and
provided support and assistance in collaboration with a
number of consortiums across the state. She could follow up
with the funding amounts if the committee was interested.
She explained that the OWL program would continue from FY
24 through FY 25 with no significant funding changes.
Representative Josephson asked if he was correct in that
funding for one or both of the programs had been vetoed
within the last five years. He understood that there would
be no significant funding changes, but there was a desire
for funding for OWL to increase.
Dr. Phillips-Chan responded that funding for OWL had
remained stable but there had been some conversations about
additional funding for SLED. She noted that the
conversations had been spearheaded by an outside entity and
not by DLAM.
Co-Chair Johnson noted that UGF funds decreased from $15
million in FY 24 to $8 million in FY 25. She asked if the
change was due to transferring the BAG funds out of DLAM.
Ms. Carson responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Isaak responded that the $5 million item was listed on
slide 13 under DFSS.
2:12:49 PM
Co-Chair Johnson understood that the total cost of SB 140
was just under $2 billion, but by her calculation, the
total should be $246 million. She asked Ms. Bishop to
explain the discrepancy.
Ms. Bishop responded that DEED's analysis showed that there
would be a $13.1 million increase in correspondence
funding, an overall BSA increase totaling $176.1 million,
an increase to pupil transportation of $7.1 million, and
the as-of-yet unknown increase in funding for reading
comprehension support and the development of Individualized
Reading Plans (IRP). The changes totaled just under $20
million. Excluding the unknown funding for reading, the
total was $196.5 million. In addition, the $39 million in
BAG funding was not included. Consequently, she thought the
total cost would be over $240 million. The numbers for
correspondence, the BSA, and pupil transportation were all
based on projected student enrollment. She emphasized that
the amount of IRPs was not currently known and the $39
million BAG funding was not included in the totals.
Co-Chair Johnson commented that the numbers she had
calculated were similar to Ms. Bishop's calculations.
2:17:03 PM
Representative Coulombe noted that there was a request for
a program coordinator to help transfer BAG out of DLAM. She
asked how BAG funding was distributed in the past and how
the process would change.
Ms. Bishop responded that when BAG was located in DLAM, the
grant disbursement was processed through a contracted
employee rather than a program coordinator. Over time, the
internet had become more complex as had the various
services that were available across the state. There was a
contract for $78,000 for BAG in the prior year but due to
the complexity of the program, more work had to be done
than was anticipated. She thought that BAG was better
suited in a different division under DEED in order to
dedicate an experienced grant provider to BAG. Due to the
potential influx in money resulting from the passage of SB
140, it was anticipated that there would be significant
interest in BAG funding. She thought it was important that
knowledgeable and experienced individuals were working with
the funding.
Representative Coulombe understood that DEED had about $6.7
million in BAG funding for the past few years. She asked if
the funding included in SB 140 would supplant the $6.7
million.
Ms. Bishop responded that she would have to follow up with
specific information.
2:20:26 PM
Ms. Carson continued on slide 18 and relayed that Mt.
Edgecumbe High School (MEHS) was a state-run boarding
school located in Sitka. The budget for MEHS was broken
down into funding for the school itself, funding for the
aquatic center, and funding for facilities maintenance. The
FY 25 budget totaled $16.7 million and included 51 full-
time positions and 10 part-time positions.
Ms. Carson continued to slide 19 and detailed the budgetary
information for the Alaska State Council on the Arts
(ASCA). The council represented and advanced the creative
endeavors of individuals, organizations, and agencies
throughout Alaska. The budget for FY 25 totaled
approximately $4 million and included five full-time
positions and one non-permanent position.
Ms. Carson advanced to slide 20 and reviewed the budget for
the Professional Teaching Practices Commission (PTPC). The
commission helped prepare, attract, and retain effective
education professionals by serving as a preventative force
to enhance the professional performance of all educators
and ensuring that educators were qualified and ethical. The
commission had one full-time employee who worked for the
nine-member commission. The commission's total FY 25 budget
was $271,300.
Ms. Carson moved to slide 21 and gave an overview of the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE). The
commission promoted access to education and success in
education and career training beyond high school. The
budget was comprised of the Alaska Performance Scholarship
(APS), other education grants, loan servicing, and the
Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Idaho (WWAMI) medical
education components. The commission had 50 full-time
positions and two non-permanent positions. The total FY 25
budget was approximately $43.4 million.
Ms. Carson continued to slide 22 which provided an overview
of DEED's budgetary changes. Most of the information had
been discussed already during the presentation, but she
wanted to highlight an error on the slide: the funding for
the Alaska Resource Education (ARE) grant would be
distributed in FY 25 and FY 26, not FY 24 and FY 25. She
concluded the presentation.
2:23:39 PM
Representative Josephson asked how much money had been
invested in ARA thus far.
Mr. Isaak responded that he would defer the question to Ms.
Bishop. He noted that department directors who worked
directly with ARA were also available for questions.
Ms. Bishop responded that the focus of the $5 million
investment in ARAI was to support school districts and
reading tutors. The entire component was in support of ARA.
at the start of the program, $30 was allocated per pupil.
There had also been an influx of COVID-19 relief funding to
help build capacity around professional development and
building the program. She could provide the detailed dollar
amounts in a follow up. She requested that someone from
DIEE share the information about the ARA input and overall
budget.
Representative Josephson would appreciate the detailed
information. He asked what the fiscal notes called for
after the passage of ARA in 2022 and how much funding had
been historically appropriated. He clarified that he wanted
to understand how much had been spent thus far on the
implementation of ARA.
Ms. Bishop would follow up with the information.
2:26:38 PM
Representative Tomaszewski referred to slide 21 and asked
for more information about the appropriations for ACPE. He
understood that the administration and operations of the
commission were about a quarter of the commission's total
budget. He asked for more information on what the
administration and operation of the commission entailed.
SANA EFIRD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY
DEVELOPMENT, replied that the funding for administration
and operations of the commission included all of the
personnel that administered the loan programs and the state
financial aid programs. She clarified that ACPE was funded
through the Alaska Student Western Undergraduate Exchange
(WUE) corporation and the funding was distributed as
interagency receipts to the component of program
administration and operations. The component was made up of
50 positions, which cost around $6.9 million. The
contractual cost made up for the remainder of the
expenditures. The total budget was closer to $33 million:
about $23 million in pass-through grants and $10 million in
program operations. She added that ACPE administered all of
the student loan corporation programs, which were not
reflected on slide 21.
Representative Tomaszewski asked for confirmation that
administration and operation of the commission was about a
quarter of the budget.
Ms. Efird responded in the affirmative.
Representative Cronk asked for a list of all of the federal
impact aid dollars broken down by school district.
Ms. Bishop responded that she would provide the
information.
Representative Coulombe noted that the fund source for PTPC
was listed as designated general funds (DGF) and UGF, but
she understood that PTPC was funded through licensing fees
for teacher certifications. She asked why UGF was listed.
Mr. Isaak responded that he would follow up on the
historical UGF funding. The large increase in the FY 23
actuals was due to using teacher certification fees for
funding the spike in the number of hearings.
Representative Coulombe requested that Mr. Issak include
information about the revenue in his follow up.
2:32:24 PM
Representative Galvin understood that ARA had 12 employees
total and the budget spend was $5 million. She assumed that
there were other expenses apart from personnel costs and
asked what the other expenses were.
Ms. Bishop responded that a portion of the cost was for a
building to house the reading academy and for teacher and
tutor training. She relayed that the building was currently
being completed. The money would also help support school
districts with materials outside of the core curriculum and
help fund summer programs. She reiterated that the majority
of the funding was dedicated to helping school districts
with the costs for materials and professional development
that might not be included in a district's budget.
Representative Galvin understood that a building was
currently being constructed for the reading academy. She
asked where the building was and how much had been spent on
it.
Ms. Bishop corrected herself and shared that a new building
was not being built, but an existing building was being
renovated to ensure that it was a safe environment for
young people. She would follow up with the breakdown of the
expenditures and the programmatic goals leading into 2025.
Representative Cronk asked what the "other" funding for
MEHS was for.
Mr. Isaak responded that MEHS did not receive funding in
the same manner as other schools. He explained that funding
for MEHS had to flow through other funds to be appropriated
properly. He clarified that MEHS was not treated like other
school districts and the funding formula did not apply in
the same way.
Representative Cronk asked what the total annual cost was
for the aquatic center.
Mr. Isaak responded that the director of MEHS was online
and could answer the question. He noted that the aquatic
center received receipts.
2:38:32 PM
SUZZUK HUNTINGTON, DIRECTOR, MT. EDGECUMBE HIGH SCHOOL,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, (via
teleconference), responded that the UGF costs were the same
as the aquatic center costs. She would follow up to confirm
the information.
Representative Cronk relayed that he would also like to
know what kind of revenue was brought in by the receipts.
Ms. Huntington confirmed that she would follow up with the
requested information.
Ms. Bishop continued to slide 23 which detailed the
financial input for the BSA for public school funding. The
chart on the slide also showed funding that was outside of
the funding formula.
Ms. Bishop continued to slide 24 which included a chart
demonstrating the total state aid and total average daily
membership (ADM). For FY 25, there was a projected
reduction of 4,218 students based off of the projected
numbers for school districts since 2000. She moved to slide
25 which depicted the history of the statewide ADM. The ADM
had changed over time and the pandemic had a significant
impact on parent choices and brought to light the lack of
resources for correspondence schools. The focus on
correspondence schools had grown and had impacted the ADM.
Ms. Bishop advanced to slide 26 which provided contact
information for the presenters.
2:42:10 PM
Representative Stapp asked about Department of Defense
Education Activity (DODEA) grants and wondered if DEED had
the mechanism to apply for the grants.
Ms. Bishop responded that her colleague might have more
information about the grants. There was available impact
aid provided to large scale installations that was meant to
replace the local tax value for those living on military
bases.
KAREN MORRISON, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via
teleconference), replied that the state received additional
funding for its military bases.
Representative Stapp asked if the funding given to the
military bases remained within the local school districts
or was moved around.
Ms. Morrison responded that the impact aid was distributed
directly to the school districts and did not flow through
the state, but it was used in the foundation formula. There
was additional funding for military bases that flowed
through the state and was a direct pass-through to the
local school districts.
Representative Stapp asked if all the federal money that
came to the state as pass-through funds went directly to
the military bases' local school districts.
Ms. Morrison responded that the funds went directly through
the state to the military bases' local school districts.
2:45:28 PM
Representative Galvin understood that there were a few
slides that should be updated to reflect the recent vote on
SB 140.
Co-Chair Johnson noted that the bill had not yet been
signed into law. She wanted to wait to ask for significant
changes to the presentation until the changes were
solidified. She suggested that the changes be discussed
during the subcommittee process.
Representative Stapp asked how the funding that flowed
through the BSA was distributed to military schools. He
asked if the funding was distributed to every ADM within
the program.
Ms. Morrison responded that there was no funding received
at the state level for impact aid. She explained that
impact aid was used as part of the foundation formula as a
percentage deduction and it was not given to the state.
Ms. Bishop added that impact aid was a replacement for
taxes which were received by the municipality. When a
municipality provided a basic need in a local incorporated
area, the basic need was considered the minimum amount that
needed to be provided for the local share. She explained
that 90 percent of impact aid could be considered as
support for the local tax evaluation that was incorporated
as part of the basic need portion of the funding formula.
The remaining 10 percent was deducted for the purpose of
fees.
HB 268 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 270 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnson reviewed the agenda for the next meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DEED FY25 Budget Overview H FIN 2.23.24.pdf |
HFIN 2/23/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 268 HB 270 |