Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/08/2022 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 | |
| Presentation: Deed Fy 23 Budget, Bsa Formula, Federal Aid Impact Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 8, 2022
1:35 p.m.
1:35:57 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
Heidi Teshner, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Education and Early Development; Lacey Sanders,
Administrative Services Director, Department of Education
and Early Development, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
None
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: DEED FY 23 BUDGET, BSA FORMULA, FEDERAL AID
IMPACT UPDATE
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
^PRESENTATION: DEED FY 23 BUDGET, BSA FORMULA, FEDERAL AID
IMPACT UPDATE
1:36:46 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked that members hold their questions
until the end of each section of the presentation.
1:37:45 PM
HEIDI TESHNER, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced the PowerPoint
Presentation: "Public School Funding Formula, COVID-19
Federal Relief Funding, FY2023 Operating Budget" (copy on
file). She reviewed the agenda of the presentation on
slide 2:
? Public School Funding Formula
Statewide Enrollment Counts
Foundation Payment Process and Advances
Additional State-Funded Formula Programs
? COVID-19 Federal Relief Funding Overview
Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security
(CARES) Act
- Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations (CRRSA) Act
American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act
? Department of Education & Early Development's FY2023
Operating Budget
Ms. Teshner turned to slide 4. She indicated the
legislature provided a formula in AS 14.17.410 for funding
school operational costs, which was referred to as the
public school funding formula or the foundation formula.
She mentioned that Regional Educational Attendance Areas
(REAA) did not have a local contribution in statute and
there were 19 REAA school districts in Alaska. The amount
of state aid a school district was eligible to receive
during the fiscal year was calculated annually through the
school funding formula. The first step in determining the
amount of state aid for a district was to find out the
average daily membership (ADM) of students in each school.
The committee had been provided with two supplemental
handouts which detailed the foundation formula and the
changes to the formula over time (copies on file).
1:40:29 PM
Ms. Teshner turned to slide 5 and explained that ADM was
based on a 20-day student count that each district
conducted every year in the fall. Districts were required
to submit their data to the Department of Education and
Early Development (DEED) two weeks after the count period
ended. The department would use ADM data to determine a
district's eligibility for state aid and funding.
Co-Chair Foster commented that there were three sections in
the presentation and reminded members to hold questions
until the end of each section.
Ms. Teshner moved to slide 6. She noted that the table in
the upper portion of the slide showed the statewide ADM
projections and actual numbers by fiscal year. The table
also included the Online Alaska Student Identification
System (OASIS), which were the reconciled ADM counts to
ensure there were no duplicates or errors. The OASIS data
was what districts received for final review. The projected
ADM was used to develop the governor's budget and was not
to be used for any other purposes. There was an increase in
both correspondence ADM and regular ADM in FY 23. The
adjusted ADM included all of the factors that she would
address later in the presentation.
1:45:32 PM
Ms. Teshner turned to slide 7 and explained that districts
that experienced a five percent or more enrollment loss in
one year triggered the hold harmless provision. Eligibility
for the provision was determined after actual ADM was
calculated and totaled for all schools in a district. The
provision was available to school districts over a period
of three years. The three-year step down would allow
districts' budgets to adjust to decreased funding due to a
decrease in ADM.
Ms. Teshner continued to slide 8 and explained that after
ADMs were determined, the next step was to apply the school
size factor to the student count according to the public
school funding formula. The tables on slide 8 and 9 helped
to illustrate the steps in the formula and the multipliers
that were used to determine a district's basic need. She
explained that slide 8 showed the multipliers that
determined a district's ADM. The formula functioned by
applying the total ADM to the school size table,
determining a district's eligibility for the hold harmless
provision, multiplying that number by the district's cost
factor and special needs factor, multiplying again by the
vocation education factor, multiplying once more by the
special education intensives, and finally multiplying the
resulting number by the correspondence ADM. The resulting
number was the district's adjusted ADM. She reminded the
committee that the first of the aforementioned handouts
provided more detail on each of these steps.
Ms. Teshner continued to slide 9 which showed the formula
to determine state aid for districts. She would not go into
detail but offered reassurance that all of the steps of the
formula were outlined in statute.
1:49:39 PM
Ms. Teshner moved to slide 10 which showed a historical
picture of BSA funding from FY 99 to FY 23 as projected. It
also included any instance of money outside of the funding
formula that was paid out based on adjusted ADM. The slide
showed that BSA had increased 11 times since 1999, which
was a 51 percent increase. The most recent increase
occurred in FY 17.
Ms. Teshner addressed the bottom portion of slide 11, which
was the funding side of the foundation formula. She
reported that there was a net increase of $11.6 million
between the actual FY 22 OASIS data and the projected FY 22
data. She added that it was projected that 27 districts
would be receiving an increase of approximately $29 million
and the remaining 27 districts would receive a decrease of
approximately $7.3 million.
Ms. Teshner moved to slide 12 which showed the foundation
funding payment process. Districts received foundation
payments based on the previous year's student count for the
first nine months of the school year as mandated by AS
14.17.610(a). The remaining three months were recalculated
and "trued-up" based on the finalized current year
foundation counts. This ensured that when the fiscal year
ended, districts had been paid what was due based on the
actual reconciled ADM counts.
Ms. Teshner continued to slide 13. There was also a
provision in statute that allowed advances for districts on
foundation payments. Districts that had experienced a large
increase in student enrollment could request an advance on
their anticipated finalized state aid funding as stated in
AS 14.17.610(c). She indicated that the requirements that
districts must adhere to in order to request an advance
were outlined on the slide.
1:53:47 PM
Ms. Teshner advanced to slide 14 which discussed additional
state-funded formula programs that used the ADM counts to
determine FY 22 final grant amounts. The programs included
transportation and the residential schools program. Pupil
transportation was determined based on the statutory
formula in AS 14.09.010. The appropriation for FY 22 was
approximately $71.4 million, the estimated FY 22 actual
grant was $71.1 million, and the FY 23 projected
appropriation was $71.8 million.
Ms. Teshner reported that the residential school funding
was also determined by a statutory formula in AS 14.16.200.
The funding included a residential stipend as well as one
round-trip reimbursement per student. The appropriation for
FY 22 was approximately $8.2 million, the estimated FY 22
actual grant was $4.8 million, and the FY 23 projected
appropriation was $8.4 million. The projected FY 23
appropriation reflected an increment request in the
governor's budget for the Lower Yukon School District's
career and technical education (CTE) residential program.
The district had applied for an increase in bed count from
50 to 70 students and to open the program from being
limited to the district to being a state-wide program. The
opening of the program was an agreement between the
Anchorage School District, the Lower Yukon School District,
and the University of Alaska. The last item referenced on
the slide related to Handout 3 (copy on file). The document
outlined the estimated changes in foundation, pupil
transportation, and the residential schools program.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Ms. Teshner and asked if there were
questions.
1:58:27 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz had a question on slide 10, which was an
illustration of the history of the BSA. The slide
referenced a $30 million infusion outside of the formula
that was distributed to districts. He wondered about the
financial impact of the additional funds.
Ms. Teshner responded that every $100 increase in the BSA
represented approximately $25 million. It was slightly more
than a $100 change in the BSA.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if Ms. Teshner could supply any
information about the consumer price index (CPI).
Ms. Teshner would follow up with the information.
Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Teshner to restate the statistic
regarding the increase in the BSA.
Ms. Teshner responded that every $100 increase in the BSA
would equate to about $25 million.
2:00:28 PM
Representative Wool asked for more information about the
local contribution statutes that were part of the funding
formula. He wondered if there were variations depending on
locality.
Ms. Teshner pointed members to Handout 3, which was the
funding overview document. She explained that contributions
were calculated in a standardized way across the state at a
2.65 percent tax levy of the full and true value of a
taxable real property within a district. There were two or
three districts that deviated from the standard and she
would supply that information to the committee.
Representative Wool noted that for correspondence schools,
the districts would receive 90 percent towards the adjusted
ADM. He based his understanding on slide 8 of the
presentation. The ADM included correspondence in the public
school funding formula calculations and he wanted to ensure
that it was not counted twice.
Ms. Teshner replied that correspondence students were
included in the total ADM count. However, correspondence
students were excluded in the school size table on slide 8
and then added back into the calculation at the end.
2:03:25 PM
Representative Wool understood that because correspondence
students were not occupying brick-and-mortar schools, they
should not be included in the school size table counts
because they did not require the same amount of resources
as brick-and-mortar students. He wondered if the
reimbursement that correspondence students received for
curriculum was reflected in the formula.
Ms. Teshner confirmed that correspondence students received
allotments from their local districts. She explained that
the allotment was included in the 90 percent correspondence
ADM funding that districts would receive for student counts
for correspondence students.
Representative Wool suggested the school district would
have to distribute some of the correspondence funding back
to the families of correspondence students. He referred to
slide 11 and thought there was some conflicting data. He
noted that under "FY2022 OASIS vs FY2021 Actual" there was
a decrease in correspondence by 22.8 percent. He thought
that a different graph in the presentation showed an
increase in correspondence. It made more sense to him for
correspondence to increase due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He
asked Ms. Teshner to address the issue.
Ms. Teshner responded that the FY 2020 actuals were not
shown on the chart and those numbers would have helped show
the entire picture. More students were going back to brick-
and-mortar schools in the current 2022 school year than
were returning during the 2021 school year. She relayed
that was the conclusion from the data on the chart and was
the reason for the decrease in correspondence.
Representative Wool asked if an upwards trend in
correspondence would be continuing or if brick-and-mortar
student populations would return to averages seen in 2019.
Ms. Teshner replied that the state was not seeing a full
return to pre-pandemic brick-and-mortar student population
numbers. Parents were still choosing to enroll their
children in correspondence education at higher rates than
those seen pre-pandemic, but enrollment was not as high as
peak pandemic numbers.
Representative Wool supposed the correspondence numbers
could return to pre-pandemic numbers, but it had not
happened yet.
Ms. Teshner responded, "That's correct."
2:08:11 PM
Representative LeBon returned to slide 9 and asked how the
"big five" school districts in the state ranked on required
local contribution rates.
Ms. Teshner recalled that most of the largest five
districts were contributing near the maximum allowable
local contributions. She could provide a breakdown of the
local contributions to the committee.
Representative LeBon noted that he was often asked about
contributions to the education formula when he was a member
of the school board. He noted that the lack of inflationary
measures in the formula had always been an issue. He
recalled that there used to be a high school qualifying
exam to measure student performance by district. He asked
if DEED had a process to measure student performance over
time.
Ms. Teshner responded that there were various statewide
assessments including a forthcoming assessment in the
spring. She indicated there were some mechanisms in place
to measure performance and display the information to the
legislature, but she could not give extensive detail
because it was outside of her area of expertise.
Representative LeBon appreciated the answer. He suggested
that the whole purpose of high school qualifying exams was
to deny gradation to students who did not pass the exam.
Although the law surrounding the exam was no longer
enforced, the goal of high student achievement and minimum
standards should not go away. He viewed the department as a
gatekeeper of district performance.
2:12:49 PM
Representative Josephson asked if there were any vetoes of
one-time funding by the administration.
Ms. Teshner responded that there was a veto in FY 21.
Representative Josephson asked for the sum of the vetoed
funding.
Ms. Teshner thought the amount was $20 million.
Representative Rasmussen asked about the possibility of an
additional student count in the spring of each year to
denote the changes in student population.
Ms. Teshner replied that the department had considered
doing a second count each year. However, the process needed
further analysis to determine whether it was warranted.
Representative Rasmussen asked if cost was a factor.
Ms. Teshner responded that there was one staff member at
the department who ran the foundation funding formula, and
it was a question of whether the staff member could
reasonably take on the additional workload. The department
was looking into a new system that would provide more real-
time and readily available data.
Representative Rasmussen asked if there was a funding
request in the current budget to implement a new system
that would provide more timely data.
Ms. Teshner replied that there was not an increment request
in the FY 22 budget for the following year. The department
had considered paying for the new system through the
federal Coronavirus Relief Fund, but discussions were still
in the early stages.
2:16:23 PM
Representative Johnson referred to slide 10 and understood
that there were 10 different entries to the BSA. She
wondered if the increase in the BSA had correlated to
better student performance.
Ms. Teshner replied that to her knowledge the department
did not have information that showed a correlation. She
would follow up with the committee if there was additional
information she could share.
Representative Johnson asked for information on the amount
that had been spent on CTE.
Ms. Teshner responded that she did not have that
information but would supply it to the committee. She
explained that the CTE monies that were funded through the
foundation formula were reported in a district's operating
fund and co-mingled with all other expenditures. The
department did not have information on the amount of CTE
funding that came through the formula. However, districts
received grants for CTE and the department could supply
that information to the committee.
Representative Johnson asked for clarification on the
information held by the department.
Ms. Teshner responded that CTE funding amounts were rolled
into the total state-aid amounts that were distributed to
districts. The totals were reported in a district's
operating fund and the department did not know the
breakdown within an operating fund. The department had
information on the amounts spent in broad categories, but
not specifically on CTE.
Representative Johnson asked if she could get the available
information.
Ms. Teshner responded that she would distribute the
available reports to the committee.
2:19:49 PM
LACEY SANDERS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, thought Representative
Johnson was looking for CTE expenditures made by the school
districts. She offered to request that information from the
districts to supply it to the committee.
Representative Johnson thought the information would be
great.
2:20:29 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz returned to slide 8 and asked about the
special needs factor. He wondered how it was determined.
Ms. Teshner responded that the special needs factor was
applied to all brick-and-mortar students. She thought he
was asking about the special intensive needs students.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked whether the resources were coming
from the federal government. He wondered if the state's
contribution to the ADM was impacted.
Ms. Teshner responded that it was comprised strictly of
state funding.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for confirmation that the federal
government played a role in school funding.
Ms. Teshner responded that districts received special
education fudging from the federal government that passed
through the department. She was strictly talking about
state dollars in relation to the foundation funding
formula.
Representative Wool retuned to the topic of correspondence.
He thought the total ADM received all of the multipliers in
the formula on slide 8. He understood that school districts
revived 90 percent of a BSA amount for every correspondence
student. He wondered if $2,000 or $2,500 was distributed
for correspondence student curriculum.
Ms. Teshner responded that student allotments varied by
district. She could provide an average, but it would not be
the same for every district.
Representative Wool thought that $2,000 per child was
distributed in Fairbanks. He thought that some
correspondence schools had brick-and-mortar costs but did
not receive the multipliers in the formula.
Ms. Teshner responded that Representative Wool was correct.
2:24:30 PM
Representative Thompson noted that the special education
intensives percentage on slide 8 was 13 times the BSA rate.
He wondered if different levels of care for special
intensive needs students were considered and if the rate
was consistent or dependent on each student's level of
need.
Ms. Teshner replied that there was a checklist that
students had to meet in order to qualify for special
education intensive care. She would supply a document to
the committee that clearly outlined the criteria.
2:25:44 PM
Ms. Sanders moved to the second part of the presentation on
slide 16 to review an update on the pandemic relief
funding. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act was signed into law on March 27, 2020 and
awarded $74.5 million to DEED. She explained that there
were three CARES packages, and she would begin by detailing
the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER
I) Funds. The department received a total of $38.4 million
through ESSER I and the CARES Act specified that 90 percent
of the funding would pass through to local education
agencies. The funding distribution to school districts was
allocated based on the proportion of Title 1, Part A funds
that were received in the most recent year per federal
guidance. School districts worked with the department to
ensure the funds were used responsibly and adhered to
federal guidelines. The remaining ten percent of the ESSER
I funds was allocated to DEED. The department was also
permitted to allocate 0.5 percent of the funds for
administrative costs.
Ms. Sanders continued to speak about the second type of
CARES fund which was the Governor's Emergency Education
Relief (GEER I) Fund. She explained that the governor
received an award of $6.5 million with the purpose of
providing emergency assistance to educational entities as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The governor provided the
University of Alaska $1.5 million and $200,000 of the $1.5
million was distributed to the Alaska Native Science and
Engineering Program. School districts were awarded $3.7
million of the funding and the governor provided a
competitive grant application period to allow other
educational entities the opportunity to apply for the
remaining funds.
2:29:58 PM
Ms. Sanders continued to the additional CARES Act
allocation portion. The child nutrition food assistance
program received a $42.2 million grant even though the
agencies that organized the program only requested $28.3
million. The nutrition program also received a Center for
Disease Control (CDC) grant under the school wellness
program in response to the pandemic. The Division of
Libraries, Achieves, and Museums also received a $66,000
award from the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
There was a small amount of funding that did not get spent
and unfortunately the applicable timeframe ended before the
department was able to distribute the funds to another
grantee. Lastly, the Alaska State Council on the Arts
received a $421,500 grant from the National Endowment for
the Arts and awarded 49 grants to artists in Alaska.
2:31:51 PM
Ms. Sanders turned to slide 17 which discussed the
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations
(CRRSA) Act. She reported CRRSA was signed into law on
December 27, 2020 and allocated a total of $168 million to
DEED. The department received $159.7 million under ESSR II
which again provided 90 percent of funds to the school
districts and ten percent to the department.
Ms. Sanders noted that under GEER II funds, the governor
received a second award of $2.8 million to provide
additional emergency assistance to educational entities.
Under the award, the governor provided $2.1 million to the
University of Alaska Anchorage to increase its capacity to
help train nurses.
Ms. Sanders continued that under CRRSA, there was a new
program added called Emergency Assistance for Non-Public
Schools (EANS I). The total allocation to the state was
$5.3 million and the state was given six months to
distribute the funding to non-public schools. The
department opened an application period on Feb 12, 2021 and
there were six non-public schools that were approved. The
department could not provide a check to the non-public
schools, but instead would purchase services and items on
behalf of the non-public school and the department would
ultimately own the items. After the six-month timeframe
elapsed, the remaining balance would be converted to GEERF.
She noted that non-public schools were eligible for GEERF
monies. One of the most significant needs reported by the
non-public schools was air purifiers. The utilization of
the remaining balance was still being determined.
2:37:13 PM
Ms. Sanders continued to slide 18 regarding the American
Rescue Plan (ARP) Act which provided DEED $379 million.
Under the school district allocation, there were two new
provisions under federal guidance. The first provision was
that school districts must use at least 20 percent of the
award to address learning loss and the second was that
schools must develop and publish on their websites a plan
for a safe return to in-person instruction. The department
also received two new awards under ARP including funds for
homeless children and youth and funds for the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Ms. Sanders reported there was a separate award called
Emergency Assistance for Non-Public Schools (EANS)II, which
totaled $5.9 million. The application period for the award
was opened on January 31, 2022 and it would run through
February 21, 2022. One change to the reward was that there
was a requirement for the department to provide assistance
to non-public schools that had a significant percentage of
low-income students. The requirements for eligibility were
still being determined.
Ms. Sanders added that the Division of Libraries, Achieves,
and Museums also received a second award of $2.2 million
and the Alaska State Council on the Arts received a second
award of $749,000.
Ms. Sanders advanced to slide 19 and relayed that DEED had
received a total of $621 million for educational purposes.
The slide displayed a summary of the breakdown of the funds
she had detailed in the previous slides. She reminded
members that Handout 4 and Handout 5 (copies on file)
provided a detailed breakdown of funding by school
district. The school district had spent $77 million of the
fund so far leaving $439 million for further allocation.
She added that the department received reimbursements on a
daily basis.
2:43:59 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Sanders if she had completed her
presentation.
Ms. Sanders responded in the negative.
Ms. Sanders reviewed a series of links that could be found
on the department's website. The website was intended to
provide an informational funding dashboard on all of the
COVID-19 relief funding for the public, parents,
legislators, or anyone that might be interested. The
website showed how the money was being spent and from where
the money derived under each specific act. The website
provided more detailed information on each school district
and how much money it had received, how it was spent, and
how much money was remaining. She noted it was a work in
process and welcomed feedback and comments.
Ms. Sanders moved to slide 21 which showed the overall
decision making process of how the funds would be utilized.
She explained that the department was using the five
strategic priorities under Alaska's Education Challenge,
which were outlined on the slide. Under each priority, the
slide showed what the department was doing to address the
challenges. She ensured the committee that the money was
being used strategically and that the department was being
mindful to avoid hitting a fiscal cliff.
2:51:38 PM
Representative Josephson referred to Handout 5 which showed
the total unspent balance of COVID-related funds. He
thought that a person could conclude from the handout that
a BSA increase was not warranted because there were
multiple other resources available. He asked whether that
would be incorrect to assume, and if it was incorrect, what
could be said to disprove the assumption. He assumed the
districts could not just allocate money to pay teacher
salaries.
Ms. Sanders replied that there was a significant amount of
money that was available to school districts. The first
phase of the CARES Act was highly prescriptive and focused
on meeting the needs created by the pandemic. As additional
funding rolled out, the allowable uses of the funding were
broadened. She relayed that school districts were using the
funds on personnel and support costs.
Representative Josephson asked if the expenses were related
to COVID-19.
Ms. Sanders commented that the costs were associated with
the pandemic, but also the funds were intended to support
teachers that were currently working. The funds had a broad
allowability.
Ms. Teshner added that the funds were intended to be
allocated towards COVID-related expenses. For example, if a
school needed to maintain smaller class sizes for social
distancing purposes, the school might require more
teachers. Everything that a school included in an
application for COVID-relief funds must be related to a
COVID-relief response.
2:54:54 PM
Representative Josephson stated that a number of
legislators had met with school district officials in
Anchorage, and he had heard there was an incoming deficit
that would be close to a $20 million. He thought the
dollars were fair, but that drilling down was needed.
Representative Rasmussen relayed that the legislature had
received information about the carry-forward or rollover
balances held by the school districts in 2021. She asked if
she could be supplied with the same information for the
current year.
Ms. Teshner replied that Handout 3 (copy on file) provided
the FY 21 unreserved fund balance. There was an asterisk
next to each balance that indicated the funds that had
exceeded the ten percent limit. She explained that
districts were allowed to carry-over more than ten percent
through FY 25.
Representative Rasmussen understood the state was
anticipating a large amount of incoming funding for
broadband from separate fund sources. She asked if the
funds would create an issue in the disparity test.
Ms. Teshner replied that the department had discussions on
the topic and it did not think that the funds would have an
impact on the disparity tests.
2:57:23 PM
Representative LeBon referenced Handout 3 and highlighted
that there was no number in the unreserved fund balance
field for the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
(FNSBSD). He asked if it was because the fund balance had
been spent and there were no remaining unreserved funds. He
wondered what conclusion should be drawn from the
information.
Ms. Teshner responded that FNSBSD reported that it had a
zero unreserved fund balance in its audit from 2021. She
detailed that the district had used its operating fund and
had made plans for the COVID-relief funds. She did not know
if there was a correlation between the operating funds
being spent and there being a zero unreserved fund balance.
Representative LeBon asked how DEED provided support for
districts on curriculum choices. He wondered if the
department made any recommendations to districts.
Ms. Sanders responded that the department certainly could
assist in curriculum but the choice was ultimately up to
the local school districts. The department did not have
statutory authority over the implementation of curriculum.
Representative LeBon asked if the department would look at
curriculum and make judgments about student performance if
a district was underperforming.
Ms. Sanders responded that she did not know but would
follow up with the answer.
3:00:38 PM
Representative Carpenter wanted a better understanding of
how much money each of the school districts had received.
He wondered if the information was in Handout 3.
Ms. Teshner responded that in the first three rows of the
handout showed the changes in funding for the current
fiscal year. The overall amounts were not in the handout,
but the foundation reports could be found on the
department's website. The website showed the amounts a
district currently received, how much it had received in
the past, and what it was projected to receive in the
future.
Representative Carpenter thought would be helpful to have a
document that showed both the changes and the overall
amounts.
Ms. Teshner could provide a report that showed what
districts actually received as compared to the amounts that
were carried over.
Representative Carpenter was appreciative.
Vice-Chair Ortiz invited the presenters to continue.
3:02:37 PM
Ms. Sanders moved to slide 23 which showed a high-level
overview of DEED's FY 23 operating budget as compared to
the prior years. The total budget was $1.6 billion and was
primarily made up of $1.3 million of unrestricted general
funds (UGF). The other fund groups were also summarized on
the slide. There was an overall decrease of $402 million
when compared to the prior year. It was slightly misleading
because the most significant reason for the decrease was
the change in COVID-relief funds. By June 30, 2022 the
department would know the amount that had not been spent
and the remaining balance would carry into FY 23. She
explained that when the federal relief funding was removed
from calculations, there was a decrease of $18.2 million
that was primarily due to the change in the ADM.
Ms. Sanders moved to slide 24 which showed a few of the
budget changes for FY 23. She indicated that programs
funded with Higher Education Investment Funds had been
fully funded with general funds to ensure continuity of
services. Additionally, the foundation and pupil
transportation programs were fully funded based on the
statutory formula and the BSA remained at $5,930.
Ms. Sanders reported that another change to the budget was
the update to the Broadband Assistance Grants (BAG)
authority to reflect actual expenditures, which was a $1
million UGF reduction. She had identified that the
department had excessive authority for BAG which meant that
all school districts that qualified for the grants were
receiving the full amount for which they were eligible
under the program. She projected a lapse of $1.6 million
and the budget proposed a $1 million reduction, which left
$600,000 to address any new applications or changes to the
program. She also noted there were two statewide items that
were not reflected in the operating budget that were listed
on the slide. She concluded the presentation and was
available for questions.
3:07:40 PM
Representative LeBon had a question about accountability.
He wondered if every school district in the state was
meeting a minimum performance expectation.
Ms. Sanders responded that the responsibility of the
department was to provide the appropriated funding to
school districts based on statutory formulas. She asked if
Representative LeBon was inquiring about student outcomes
in Alaska as compared to the rest of the United States.
Representative LeBon noted that each slide in the
presentation had a footer that read, "An excellent
education for every student every day." He asked how the
department measured whether the goal was reached.
Ms. Sanders responded that the statement was the mission
and goal of the department. She indicated that the
methodology of measuring school and student success was a
different topic and was beyond her level of expertise.
Representative LeBon appreciated the answer and thought the
legislature might be able to help the department find a way
to measure school and student success.
Representative Josephson commented that the Anchorage
School District (ASD) had reported in December of 2021 that
its budget shortfall was anticipated to be $67 million. He
suspected that ASD thought that ARP, CRRSA, and CARES
monies were not available for spending.
3:10:26 PM
Representative Edgmon had a closing comment. He appreciated
the presentation. He referred to the fifth priority on
slide 21 which was to improve the safety and well-being of
students through various partnerships and suggested it was
the first priority in rural school districts like his own.
Teacher retirement and recruitment was another pressing
issue. He thought the conversation was much broader.
Vice-Chair Ortiz relayed the committee's agenda for the
following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:12:15 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m.