House Finance, 5/1/26, 1:30pm

Okay, I'll go ahead and call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order. Let the record reflect that the time is currently 1:39 PM on Friday, May 1st, 2026. And present today, we do have Representative, um, Stapp, Representative Co-Chair Josephson, uh, Representative Galvin, Representative Tomaszewski, Representative Hannan, and I believe we may have 2 members outside the door here that should be coming in a moment. Also myself, Co-Chair Foster. And just a reminder, if folks can mute their cell phone.

We have just one bill before us today, and that is House Bill 261. That is the education funding bill.

We have, we have an answer to our questions, which is a non-answer. I think we had asked for some information from the Department of Education, but what we wanted to do was maybe address that and another question that's out there and then just open it up to questions to the committee, realizing that there may not be many more questions, but at least we wanted to make this time available for that. We also have with us Representative Jimmy. And so with that, Representative Story, if you would like to come up with your staff, Ms. Tammy Smith, and put yourself on the record, maybe if you could just start off as usual with just a really quick brief recap and just kind of remind us about the bill, get us all moving in the same direction, and then maybe address, I think, a memo that you may have given to the committee. And so, Representative Story.

Ah, yes, thank you, Co-Chair Foster, and thank you. Good to be before you again, House Finance Committee members. For the record, my name is Representative Andy Story, and I proudly represent The North Mendenhall Valley here in Juneau and Haines, Skagway, Klukwan, and Gustavus. So thank you. The bill that you have before you, House Bill 261, an act relating to education funding, to me would be a transformational bill, something that this body could use to give more confidence to the public in how we do education funding, our timeline and how that operates.

And so there are— it relies on 3-year averaging with using your student count or using the previous year student count. And there are a few other adjustments in the bill, but I wanted— I had a handout on your table and it's been posted to BASIS, and it's titled "What if Schools Knew Their Budget Before the School Year Started?" And that's what this bill seeks to do. It seeks to give our districts more stability and more confidence in the public education that we provide. And so I just want to go through that really quickly. There's not many points, but right now what this would do, this bill, was we— our districts would start the year in July knowing their funding number.

Number for the school year. So they would know based on their 3-year averaging or taking their prior year student count, their student count number. Then in October, they would go through the typical 20-day student count that we've always done. It's very important to do that because that's when DEED verifies the student count numbers, and they need to do that process for, um, for this bill forever, for the way we do student counts. And then in, in November through April, it's when our community gets together and they look at the budget and they decide what are our classrooms offerings going to be.

School board members are there and they have to get to their municipalities in that timeline between— depending if it's March or April. And this is a number with certainty. And so they are going through the budget. And then March and April, that is when we do our teacher contracts. And staff contracts, and we can give those out based on— we're not going to be truing up the October count because we know what the October count is already.

And so they can give out retention to probably their most senior teachers, staff. Remember, there's two ways that we fund our schools. It's through student count, that's one, which we're talking about, and then if this body decides to do a base student allocation increase. And so they still might have to give out some notices of pink slips, notices of non-retention, if our budgets have been flat for several years because we know fixed costs go up. And so there might have to be some notices of non-retention.

But you can give some of your staff a yes, we want to have you back. And give them certainty. And then in May, when we finalize our budget, typically that, that happens. And then if we give an increase in July, that starts— restarts with the student count. If we give an increase in this body, they still might go back and do some adjusting, but the point is they have had certainty for the year and they have most of their staff teachers that they have been able to continue.

And we know through research, through what we've been hearing from our districts, that when you have a longer time with your teacher, uh, relationship with your teachers, that, that helps with student achievement. We know families who have— may want to have the same teacher that their older child had. The more we can do to give our certainty I think is really something that is critically needed. And so I just wanted to recap, that would be the new process that we're going through. And so I wanted to give people any opportunities to ask how is that different from the current process if someone needed that, but I'm fine.

And I'll just continue and then if we want to get to that question later, we can. But I wanted to draw your attention to the answers that we got from Deed and from Justin Silverstein. And I'm going to start with Deed about when we had requests for modeling. And it is according to Deed's response, they just do not have the capacity to do the modeling. It's unfortunate that Deed is unable to do.

This work, so through the willingness of another education partner, Alasbo, Katie Parrott testified in our last committee hearing and Alasbo, the Alaska Association of School Business Officials, they are working on some trend information looking at past numbers and going forward. They really feel their numbers need, they need to present their analysis to DEED staff to verify that their assumptions are correct. They hesitate to give out those assumptions if they had not had them looked at by DEED. So this work can continue as this bill hopefully moves to the other body, getting that trend line, because I'm just not sure when they will be able to continue.

I think it's also important to note, because I haven't really been thinking about that this much, but when we're looking at using a declining enrollment average, which is what the 3-year adjustment is, what other states call it, It made me look, in talking with the school business officials too, realizing that when we lose a student, one student, how that can impact our program is, as it goes through the adjustments, we have our CTE program and adjustment. And so if you have, you know, a few less students, you're going to get less money for career tech because we base it on that career count. You know, we base it on the count of our students. And I'm not remembering exactly what the count is for our adjustment and the factor for for CTE, but that would be less when we lose a student. And also in the— what is really curious to me, what is really important to note is for our special education population, and I'm not talking our intensive needs students here, I'm just talking our general special education population, have a learning disability or some speech impediment, something that they're working on, that is funded in the block grant, 1.2, and so as we have our number, our district number for enrollment, even though our special education population has risen 14%, we're still getting less money in that block grant for special education students because we base it on the numbers of students that we have.

And so this modeling, this 3-year averaging, can help smooth out and plan an education program as we are dealing with possibly as districts may be possibly dealing with a declining enrollment. If I could just want to note that we also have with us Representative Allard and Representative Bynum, and we do have a question from Representative Allard. Thank you. And through the co-chair Foster, thank you for being here, Representative Story. Did I hear you say that DEED said they wouldn't be able to implement this?

Representative Story. Through the Chair, DEED said they— the committee had asked for some modeling to be done on the trends and DEED said that they did not— would not be able to do this. They do not have the capacity right now to do this modeling. Okay. Can I do a couple follow-ups, please?

Representative Ballard. Thank you, Representative Story. When they were mentioning that, did that mean that they were in support of— well, they can't really say. Do we know, like, the cost, or I know you spoke a little bit about who. Is there— is the cost in this fiscal note?

And then, so wouldn't we want to do all this prior, this research, and prior to before bringing this forward? What's your opinion on that? If you could clarify just a little bit, please. Representative Story. Yes, thank you.

Through the chair to Rep. Ballard, I think This is something again that 26 states have been doing across the country. They have been switching to an averaging of students to help you smooth out, apply for possibly declining enrollment. And I think that as you— as if your enrollment is declining, eventually you're going to true up. Because those numbers, as they change each year, when you're taking a 3-year average, they are going to true up. And so I think that this is with a timeline.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers going 5 years out. Deed has put it as a constant number, so they don't see it varying so much up and down as they project what we have on the fiscal notes. But I think it is very important to do, to do this because of the benefits our system to get on a better timeline. It's better for students, it's better for the educational planning, it's better for families. May I?

Representative Ballard. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Representative Story, the hold harmless is a little bit alarming to me because I'm trying to figure out when we're going to get rid of the hold harmless. When we're using the hold harmless in this situation in this bill, you're using phantom students. Student has left the system and say like they're in the Anchorage School District and they joined the Juneau School District, Anchorage School District would still be being paid for those individuals and then they're actually going to be double dipping because if that individual is, for example, homeschooling, then they could be getting paid twice at that particular school district.

So if Anchorage School District has a student, they left and they're doing homeschooling with hold harmless they're double dipping and that's costing the state and the system a lot of money. How are we going to address that issue? Thank you. Through the co-chair to Rep. Allard, I think that that was one of the questions that was asked at the prior meeting and we have an answer for that. It is number— question number 2 that you received.

And if I might just put that on the record, please. [Speaker:CAROLYN] Thank you. The question was, is it possible for two districts to count the same student if one district uses the prior three-year averaging and the other district uses the previous year? Could a student who moves from one district to another be counted twice if two different student enrollment count models are used? The first thing I want to say that the student count, the student would have to be at that place in the 20-year count period, in the 20-day count period.

So they're going to be in one or the other districts in the 20 in the 20-day October count period. And then the response to this, and this was Justin Silverstein of Augenblick, Palish and Associates, he provided this response as the author of the study, Review of Alaska's Funding Program. He stated, "No student would be fully counted in two districts in one year, but yes, an averaging approach will mean some portion of a student would likely be counted in more than one district." For example, let's say Justin attended District A in year 1 and year 2, but moved to District B in year 3. If District A uses averaging, then Justin would be 0.33 of a student in both year 1 and year 2. If District B is using previous year count, then Justin would be a 1.0 for that district.

The example actually shows the averaging approach works as needed. As District A loses a student, they have a smooth decrease allowing them to reset resource levels as they decline. District B is not punished for having the new student in a growing setting. Okay, may I? Representative Geller.

I appreciate— who is the gentleman that had said that? This is Justin Silverstein, and he is the author of the 2015 study, The Review of Education Funding. And he presented to the Education Task Force in November of this year, and in our prior presentation packet, we had a page that he did on student counts, and he was available at our first hearing, and they deal with student counts across the country. I appreciate his input. You're still looking at having a phantom student, and you're actually still looking at counting them twice, because if you're going to look at the system in which you had where we might take into consideration the end of the year versus the start of the year, whichever is the greater.

It's going to be double dipping financially, and I just don't see how we could afford this. Okay, thank you. I appreciate you bringing that forward and addressing my questions. Thank you, Representative Story. Further questions?

Representative Bynum. Thank you, good chair Foster. Through the chair, Representative Story, thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here today. We are glad to have this back in front of us.

I know that we have amendments coming up for it, so I look forward to continued conversation on that. One of the things I was wondering about this is that what we are doing here is we are looking at wanting— and if I get this wrong, please correct me— we are wanting to try to create smoothing here. And what we are saying in the bill is that we are just going to take a 3-year average if we have declining enrollment. And that ignores the idea that if we drop below 5%, that a hold harmless provision would happen. That's happening now in law.

So, but if we have more students, what we're going to do is we're basically going to do exactly what we do now, and it's that we use our current counts and we're just going to take the higher number. And then for next year, I'll take the higher number, and even if I have a decline, a decline in that next year, I'm taking the higher number from the previous year, and really you won't have the 3-year averaging being applied. I mean, the 3-year averaging may never apply is if you're taking the previous year's number, if it's always higher than the 3-year average, even in a declining enrollment environment.

[Speaker:BRAD] So was there any consideration of just simply saying we're going to just have a 3-year average and then put a hold harmless provision either way? So, I mean, you obviously don't need the hold harmless on the low end if we're just doing averaging, but basically saying you're just going to have the 3-year average, and unless you have a dramatic increase in students, you're just going to get the 3-year average instead of doing this previous year item. And the reason And the other thing is that schools are authorized to carry fund balance and hold fund balance specifically for the purpose of uncertainty. They shouldn't be using that fund balance for the purposes of their normal operating costs or spending their fund balances to zero. So what would your thoughts be on that long, super long—.

Representative Story. Thank you. And through Co-Chair Foster to Rep. Bynum, all very good questions, important to know. Know the answers to. I think the first thing I just want to clarify is with the Hold Harmless, um, those factors have been incorporated into the fiscal note.

The department knows who's in Hold Harmless right now and who would be coming out of that. And this bill also grandfathers in those districts who are in Hold Harmless, and then when they run out of— it's a 3-year process— when they run out of those fundings, that they would be transitioning to the declining school enrollment. And so that transfers. I'm not sure which question to answer next for you through the chair. Very quickly, just want to note that we also have with us Representative Sharagi.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. My comment was really is why don't we just use a 3-year averaging period? And then put a provision in that says if there was some dramatic change, then you would address it. Because the only circumstance I can see that you really are trying to use this higher number is if you had a dramatic growth.

And I could see why you would want to compensate the school for that. But for example, if you, if you had a 5% change on average for like a classroom of 20 students and you have a 5% change, you're adding one student. So it's not like we're running— we're not taking our ratios and just destroying them as far as student-teacher ratios by having that slight increase. The issue really at hand for volatility is not with the generalized student count, it's with the— as we had talked about before, with SPED and the 13 multiplier and the changes that can occur there. Wild swings can happen with funding available for the school district, and this solution in front of us here does not solve that at all.

So instead of taking just this complex averaging or do what we're doing now approach, why not just take the averaging approach unless if there's an extreme? Thank you, uh, Co-Chair Foster. Thank you for that clarification, Rep. Bynum. So this bill allows for the greater of the 3-year averaging or the the prior 3-year averaging or the previous year averaging. And why it allows for that is you can take your previous year if you know you're on an enrollment upswing and you're going to have— be providing education for the coming year for that increase in enrollment.

So you can pick whatever is greater. They want you to pick because you're providing for the students in your district and you want to try and make— making sure they're meeting their needs. And so you can pick the 3-year averaging or you can pick the greater of the previous year. And so you— again, we're trying to provide a system of education to our kids and the kids that we have. And so it allows you— I would want to see it keep having the greater of what she's— which is either the 3-year averaging or the previous year, because maybe you're starting to move where you're getting more students and we want to make sure the district can plan for them.

We don't want them to have to wait 2 years to start planning. For an increase for whatever services they are going to have to provide. Follow-up? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster, through the Chair, Representative Story. And that is why I asked about modeling this, because just sitting here thinking about it and having thought about it over the last week and not having modeled it, my assumption would be that I don't think you would ever use the 3-year averaging at all.

You would always just use the previous year, because in a declining environment your previous year, unless if you have one year that's just dipped below the average, would always be typically higher. At least the trends I've seen, that, that's the way we've been seeing declining enrollment, is that one year is less than the next year, which is less than the next year, unless if you get into a scenario where you have growth. And then if you go in a growth scenario or into this growth space, you are not using the average, you're using the higher number. So I'm not exactly sure that the 3-year average, the way that this is currently set up, will actually— it will rarely actually come into play. Representative Story.

Through the co-chair, on this, through Co-Chair Foster to Rip Bynum, in other districts who have worked with nationally with student counts, it does help if you have one year when you're declining in your 3-year averaging. You may have— you're going to take the higher one that will go— maybe the next year it's a decline, and so you've still got in that second year the little bit higher bump of those students that were there, and then it averages out with the students before. And so that if you had a bump that year and you took that, but then the next year if it was less than what your averaging was, you would want to be taking the 3 you are averaging. And as one final follow-up—. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-chair Foster. And that's why I asked if there was a demonstrated model or something that you could actually show us so we could see the numbers because we don't have that. Sure. Thank you for that, Rep. Bynum. And we are working to get you something to that.

I do know DEED is online if you have any questions for DEED or if they want to respond to anything I have said. And they have been. Lori Weed has been working on this with us and she has tried to be responsive to questions, but that modeling will take a lot of time. That's how she explained it to me.

Ms. Heather Heineken or Lori Weed, I just wanted to check in to see if there are any comments that you had before we go to the next question.

This is Heather Heineken. Director of Finance and Support Services for the Department of Education, and through the chair to Representative Bynum. We, we have not done any projection modeling. We have a single model of data that breaks it down by school and with all the detail, and I believe that that information, that modeling was provided to Representative Storey's office for them to use for further research.

Representative Storey. Ah, thank you. Yes, Lori, we did give us a whole bunch of numbers and we shared that with Connor Bell from Legislative Finance because we were not capable of figuring out exactly how the department does a lot of their elements. Okay. With that, next question is Representative Allard and then I believe staff.

Representative Allard. Thank you.

Thank you through the co-chair. So I do have a question for Deid and I guess Representative Bynum had cued in on a couple of where I was going to go too. And my question to Deid is The process for SPED students leaving a school district, is there more of a stringent process, meaning getting their records and transferring them so that the school district might know sooner than later that the student is moving so they are actually going to be fiscally prepared for that departure of that student? Because I don't— I'm a little bit concerned that this bill has much more work to do because I don't know actual the numbers. So I was trying to figure out what the process is again for SPED students leaving a school district and joining another school district.

Ms. Heinichen.

Thank you for the question. This is Heather Heinichen, Department of Education. To Representative Ballard, through the chair, I, I do finance, and so I don't handle the student records, so I'm not real sure I'm the right person to answer that. We certainly can get you that information, but it would be someone else in the department that would provide that. I apologize.

Well, that's okay. Co-chair, may I? And I'd like to ask you, um, co-chair, are we going to have this in front of us again? I know that might— I'm just— there's so much to go through with this bill, and if we don't have the proper people— no offense to Deed, they probably didn't know this question was coming— online, it's hard for us to make accurate decisions and choices with this particular bill in front of us. We, we had it scheduled for Monday, and I noticed that it was canceled for Monday, but I'm just wondering.

Wondering if it could be brought back on Monday and that— and certainly, I mean, we could bring things back up under bills previously heard as well. So if we wanted to maybe bring that back on Monday, we could. And just really quick, so we have— thank you, Co-Chair Foster. So we have Ms. Heinicke and who is the other individual online? Ms. Lori Weed.

She is the school finance manager for the Department of Education. Okay. Then can we maybe request, since we are still here, that maybe DEED has somebody that can come on the line? That way we don't have to totally wait and delay. They might be able— I hear them in the sky listening to this committee today, so I am hoping maybe they can get somebody online that might know that answer.

Representative Story. Yes, my legislative committee aide Tammy Smith is a longtime special education teacher and she would like to answer that —question. Ms. Smith, if you could please state for the record. This will be from statute, correct?

I can answer. Tammy Smith, for the record, staff to Representative Storey. I'll just explain to you my experience as a special education teacher in the state of Alaska for several years. When a student in a special ed— a student who has an IEP and they transfer from one district to another, the special education program that they are in is to start immediately. There is no change in the timeline.

If they move from Anchorage to Wasilla, they are expected to be able to have services immediately upon entering the district. At times, districts know in advance when a student is coming from another district or another state, and they may have a little bit of time to prep, but in terms of any services being provided, they— we are required by law to provide services immediately. Okay. May I? Representative Ballard.

Thank you. I'm going to try not to sneeze. So I— if you don't mind, I'd like to put this on the record. Coach R. Foster. Representative Ballard.

Thank you. So they said for request special education records separately. So children who have special needs or special education with 504 records must be requested directly through the special education department. So that's one kickoff that they're gonna be probably leaving the system or that particular school district. And then they said under federal law, the IEP doesn't simply disappear when the student leaves ASD.

IDEA requires the child with the disability to transfer to the school in the same state, district, or whatever. So it does look like there's a, a process and then there's a follow-up with record transfer. So I'm just wondering, trying to figure out on the average when children have— that are in the SPED system, I'm trying to get to that— do they give a little bit more notice so the schools are a little bit more prepared than just a child that says we're moving and I'm out of the school district? Miss Smith. Tammy Smith for the record.

It depends. That is a parent-driven— excuse me— that is a parent-driven decision. At times a parent may provide notice that they are moving, but at other times students may come in and say, I'm moving tomorrow. And so it is absolutely up to what the parent decides. Okay.

All right. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate that. And Representative Ballard, we may have Ms. Deb Riddle calling in.

She's not online right now, but she is with deed. And so we'll come back to you in a moment, see if she can answer your question. Representative Simstad. Thank you. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

Through the chair, uh, to the deeds, whoever would take that. Um, so I guess I just— I, I'm curious. I don't think it would be that complicated for you to do at least a little modeling. Like, what I would really like to know is basically how many kids move around from year to year, place to place. So you should have all that in-house.

You should have all the numbers. And the reason I want to know that is because the districts under this bill are going to maximize the money. So I need to know, like, how often the kids move around, because the people that will maximize it, if they have an enrollment growth, will be this year. If they can do the previous year and the people who are declining are going to take the 3-year average and they will always take the maximum amount of money. And like I said, how many of these kids move around from district to district on a basis through the chair?

And Ms. Heinichen.

Thank you for the question, Representative Thap. I am actually going to ask Lori Weed to answer— take that question. Miss Lori Weed, if you could put yourself on the record.

Good afternoon, this is Lori Weed, school finance manager for the Department of Education, through the chair, Chair Webster. Um, school finance doesn't track student data at that level, but we could ask the data team if they're able to help us with pulling the data of students who transition from school to pool within district and potentially between districts, if that's your question. Again, it may take a fair amount of staff resources to do it, but we can see what we can pull data together for. Yeah, follow up, Mr. Kocher.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Foster, through the chair. So you take an ADM count but you don't count the ADMs? Ms. Weed, rather, you have the districts take the ADM count and you don't know the ADM.

Through the chair, Rep. Stapp, Lori Weed. We— I have staff who do review all the ADM counts that are submitted from a district. We don't do back-year comparisons. We do single-year, making sure there's not duplicates between districts, between schools, you know, one student only counts for up to 1.08 EM.

But we don't look back to see where they had been enrolled previously. Follow-up, Mr. Kocher. Representative Stell. Thank you.

When you look at this bill, do you guys understand how big a variable that could be because of the nature of these counts? And how my concern on the fiscal note is it's fixed when clearly it's not going to be that way. Through the chair, Ms. Weed. Through the chair, good afternoon, Lori Weed.

I understand your concern that there may be some shifting of students. I don't know, I think you would be better asked to— better to ask a district representative on their process for school boundary changes. I mean, it can be a lot of work to shift schools. Parents aren't going to be particularly pleased to have their students shifted around from year to year to year. So I think there would be a community pushback if the district was trying to manipulate numbers.

I'm sorry, what's that? Yeah, through the chair to the— that's not what I meant. I'm not talking about shifting school boundaries. I'm saying like, I would— the concern I have on the bill with the fiscal note you guys have given us is We are not incorporating the fact that when the kids move around, maybe they enroll in correspondence at different districts, or maybe they move, their families physically move, or maybe there's in and out migration. Like, because some districts will— every district will maximize whatever count gives them the most amount of money, it creates a variability in the cost structure.

So I'm curious, from Deed's perspective, when you look at this bill, do you see that variability that I see, given the options that the districts will take and really the assumption that they will always take the highest possible amount of money. Through the chair, Ms. Weed.

Through the chair, Representative Statler, yes. And our modeling was built on the fact that this is the maximum amount under the, um, under the three scenarios that are presented. Okay, uh, thanks. And then I'll go to the sponsor on one real quick. Mr. Kocher.

Representative Statler. Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the chair, to representative story.

I just, from the same kind of viewpoint of, I guess, Rep. Bynum, like, I guess, have you considered just taking the average count and just eliminating the other variables? That would provide, in my opinion, the stability that you are looking for in districts, but it would also kind of make this relatively easier for us to puzzle through in terms of the math, because now we're going off to strict average that we know we have data for, rather than allowing districts to basically just maximize money, right? So I guess the issue I have with your bill is it absolutely creates stability, but it has these other provisions that are designed to maximize money, and they're almost impossible for us to model with the amount of time we have left in the session. Through the chair. Representative Story.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the chair to Rep. Stapp, when you talk about maximizing money, we're maximizing services to students with this. It's not going to be a significant.

Amount because it's smooth and it's averaged. And when I talked to the superintendents about using the 3-year average, their concerns were, well, what if I get, you know, a bump in students and I have to meet their needs for that year? Their parents are going to want to have services, and, you know, so we can get some increased money. And it is about money because money is about providing resources. To students.

So of course they would want to take that— the greater of, which would be the most current year if they had a bump in enrollment. So I think that's a good thing because I want them to be responsive to the needs of the school district at that time, and then it smooths out, like I said, the averaging over time if they happen to dip down the next year. And so we are taking the method that provides the district for the most money because I want to remind everybody on the committee that we are providing a system of education to our communities. They want to have music. They want to have the academics.

They want to have CTE. They want to have a broad program for their students. So if it is hard, if you are just going up and down. I think, Mr. Kocher, Foster, through the chair to Representative Storey, respectfully, $113 million is a significant amount of money. And the fundamental issue about the variability in the fiscal note is I don't know if it's going to go from $115 million to $155 million in 2 or 3 fiscal years, or $175 million.

And if I got to— I got to budget for that, I got to be very clear, right? So it's not so much that I— I don't mind giving the stability. I think that's important for all the school districts. But right now, because I don't have anything modeled, I'm like, I'm kind of a chasing my own tail here trying to figure out how much we would in theory have to budget for these things. So that's kind of the issue.

Thanks. Rep. Zastrow. Co-chair Foster, thank you. Through the chair, Rep. Bynum— Rep. Stapp, thank you for that clarification. I didn't mean to ever say that $113 million investment in the kids was not a little bit amount of money.

I'm just saying when you budget out in the future years, I don't think it's going to be significantly more. But I wholeheartedly agree it would be best to have, you know, as much hard numbers as we could have before us. So I'm grateful to the ELASBO that they are willing to be working on some numbers for us and looking at those trends. So thank you for your questions and asking for that. Okay, just so folks know, we have two more people online from DEED.

That is Debra Riddle. She's the division operations manager, Division of Innovation and Education Excellence. And then we also have Donald Enoch, special education administrator, Department of Education. So in the line, I have Representative Galvin, Allard, and Bynum. And I think we're going to pass on Representative Galvin, so it takes us back to Representative Allard.

Thank you. Thank you, co-chair. So this probably would be a question for Deed. How many on average, and I'm just going to use the one school district, I mean, if you want to use it statewide, that's fine, but I think we have it all broken down to school districts. So Anchorage School District, there's about 1,000 person, child, client, whatever you want to call them, students, learners, leaving the Anchorage School District per year.

And are we still using hold harmless in the Anchorage School District even if those children go into homeschooling? And are we double dipping? Are we still collecting on those children if they leave after the ADM date? And then are we then collecting for them as if they're in the brick and mortar school? And then are we collecting for them if they're in the— what's that called— homeschooling system too?

And who would like to address that question?

They're fighting over this one. Thank you for the question. They mute us, so none of us can fight. We, we just have to wait to decide that when, uh, we get unmuted. Um, thank you for the question, Representative Ballard.

This is Heather Heineken, uh, Director of Finance and Support Services. Through the chair, um, Anchorage, it would have to be a 5% decrease in their student enrollment for them to be qualified for hold harmless, so they are not meeting that threshold. And so they do not get funding both in Anchorage School District and then correspondence. There's not a hold harmless component because they're not, they're not losing enough enrollment to meet that. Okay, can I do a quick follow-up?

Representative Ballard. All right, thank you so much for that answer. I— my next question would be because I'm, I'm taken back by the fiscal note. This is $113 million per year, and I'm thinking that money could you use somewhere else better for our students. Could you tell them like the bottom line?

I can't ask you guys that. Well, I guess I can. Whether you're not in favor of the bill or not, it's not what I'm asking. I'm going to ask you, is this— would this be an improvement to what we have currently, even with this astronomical fiscal note, and it sounds like we can't even lock an accurate fiscal note into place. Could you answer that for me, Deed?

Somebody up there, in there on the phone. Ms. Heineken. So, um, through the chair to Representative Allard, this would be a change to our process, but we would administer the bill, um, however it's presented. It is certainly something that we're capable of —of making happen.

Okay. One last follow-up. Representative Ballard. I hear you and I appreciate that.

In knowing that information of the bill that you could make happen, then is the $113 million fiscal note completely accurate or are we still going to be struggling like Representative as staff had mentioned, this fiscal note can increase.

Miss Heineken. Our, uh, uh, thank you, uh, through the chair to Representative Allard. Our fiscal note is based on the FY27 projections, uh, and so we are confident in the accuracy for FY27, and it is it is practice for us to use the same numbers projecting out. So, which is why you see the same numbers from year to year to year. We have not really truly looked past FY '27 to provide clarity on increases, decreases, and we don't have information.

We would have to use historical data and It would be modeling. It wouldn't be based on factual data. The current fiscal note for FY27 is based on the factual data that we, that we have. Okay. And then can I just do one more question?

Rep. Ballard. Thank you. I think Dawn is on the line. And Dawn, I had asked the question through the chair. I had asked the question in regards to the process of SPED learners.

Could you tell us a little bit about that process and if it's just as simple as the parent moving the child without maybe a, just a precursor in order to get children established in a different school district. Mr. Donald Enoch, if you could put yourself on the record.

Uh, Representative Ballard, through the chair, the process of a student moving from one district to another, we really don't get involved much in my department with the fiscal part of that. We just try to make sure that the receiving district has the capacity to provide those services to the student. And that's usually the case. If there is an exception to that, we try to help out where we can, possibly with discretionary funds from federal funding. If they could change their— well, what some of their federal funds are going towards to help out with that.

It does have to meet the supplement— sorry, I always say that backwards, the supplement, not supplant. Rule, and, um, that would be the extent of our involvement on the SPED team at the department. Thank you. And Mr. Enoch, just for the record, you are the special education administrator with DEED, is that correct?

Yes, I apologize for not introducing myself. Oh no, just fine. I just want to make sure we have that for the record. Representative— well, actually, I've got next in the queue, unless you've got a comment. Representative Story, I'll go to Representative Bynum.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I'll pass for now. This will definitely be coming back to us, so I'm going to— the question I was going to ask, I might wait for. Okay, we'll open it back up for the rest of committee.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Representative Story, thanks for being here again. You mentioned that this bill would help school districts know what their budget is in July. And I'm curious, the, the 20-day student count is captured in October, but can school districts not take that number and calculate what their foundation formula is going to be just in the weeks after getting that count and somewhat have a, a pretty clear understanding of what the state is going to be giving them as far as a budget? Rep. Sinestroy.

Through the chair, thank you, Rep. Tomaszewski, for that question. It's a good question.

Right now, how our current system works is districts are taking a projection of what the students think they will. So when it's July 1st, they have set an idea of what they think the student numbers are going to be. And then when October comes, they adjust. They will take that 20-day student count. I'm not sure what it's going to be.

And so if they— if their projection is wrong, they could all of a sudden have a a huge discount, a huge drop in their funding, particularly if you are a rural school, because if you lose 4 students, that's quite a bit of money for your district. And you've already signed your staffing, your teacher contracts for that year, so you can't adjust in real time. And so, and then there'll be the 20-day student count period. Deed will have to go through and make sure there's not 2 students being you know, counted in two different districts. And it actually takes them to like March or April before they've got all of that lined out.

And so by starting with their student count number, by taking the prior year student count or the previous three-year averaging, then when October comes, they're not as like holding their breath and biting their nails about what will my student count be. They know what their student count is, that they've got that number. And as they go through the year, again, they can give— the biggest deal is they can give their student contracts, their teacher contracts out to their teachers because that October number is not going to vary at that particular point in the funding cycle. How it currently is, is every year districts really aren't sure what number they're going to get until the 20-day student count has been done and DEED verifies it. So it's not dependable.

They're guessing. Representative Tomaszewski. Yeah. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. So you're telling me they take the count in October and it takes DEED how long to verify those numbers?

Usually March, beginning of April. And Lori Weed is online and she can give you more background on that. That's how she's explaining it to me. I would love to hear how that takes that many months, please. Ms. Weed.

Thank you, through the chair, Lori Weed for the record.

I will, when the October count happens, districts have 2 weeks to submit their OASIS reports. Detailing their student count and enrollment. Then DE goes through a duplicate and data cleanup and review process that actually takes about, say, another 6 weeks. We typically issue ADM reports to districts in January. The additional time for finalizing the ADM for the March date that Representative Torrey referenced is on the SPED intensive reviews.

Those go through a separate appeal process that adds to the time. When we issue the January reports back to the district, that also starts a 30-day appeal process so that if, you know, there's some dispute, there's opportunity for that dialogue to happen. So follow-up, Representative Tomaszewski. So the, the ADM is done in January, you said, or the report is given to the school districts, and then you are calculating what exactly in between then and March? Ms. Weed.

Through the chair, Lori Weed, Tom Schefsky. It's the finalization of the SPED intensives. And Johnny Knox is on the line. He can give you more information if you like. But they are ensuring that each intensive student that is new on the roster for that year has been reviewed, that they are vetted to make sure that they do in fact meet the definition of intensive.

They're working with the districts to ensure that, you know, if there was any missing paperwork, they've got the paperwork. And then once they've made those determinations, again, it's a 30-day appeal process, and that typically takes through like early March or so.

OK, follow up, Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you for that. And, and so speaking of SPED or intensive, is there any SPED or intensive multipliers going to correspondence students? Ms. Weed.

Through the chair, Laurie Weed. No, correspondents are added at the end of the Foundation formula with a point line modifier. I would actually like to, if I may, this has come up before, if, you know, correspondents fed are included in that count. Correspondents, the very few SPED intensives that are being served by correspondents are included. In a district's intensive count.

So they are happening at that stage of the formula. Okay, follow-up, follow-up. And so, um, has there ever been any discussion or, um, um, inquisition on adding a SPED or intensive multiplier to the correspondent students? Through the chair, Lori Weed. I believe it has come before both bodies with different bills to move correspondence or to apply other factors to the correspondence ADM.

And a follow-up. Representative Tomczewski. Have they ever been— I mean, did they come through this? This session, have we had any— maybe I am talking to the sponsor now since you are an education representative, Story. Has there been any bills directly for, you know, the question of adding multipliers to the SPED or intensive for correspondence students?

Excellent story. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the chair to Rep. Tomaszewski. We have not had any bills before us this year before the body and committee looking at the special education factor numbers. I'm trying— and the Education Funding Task Force, we did look at special education funding, had a work session on that this year.

I think just clarifying what Laurie Weed said is we have very few intensive students in our correspondence programs. Typically because they are intensive students, they have intensive complex needs, and so they're served, you know, with the district. But I did hear her say that we had a few intensive students in correspondence, but I'm sure we have special education students within our correspondence programs, kind of the typical special education. And one part about how they are served is many times they are working with the local school district and using their special education numbers and staff. And then I'm sure that they do go out and do private special education funding because sometimes there's a long wait to get the services that you want to need to have for your child.

And Co-Chair Foster, if I may, we're bringing this back up on Monday, you said? In the afternoon. I'll reserve any more questions for then. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

I think I don't have any— Representative Bynum? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Again, I won't get into the mechanics of the bill at this point, but through the chair, Representative Story, I'm sorry if I don't recall or remember. I know that there was quite a bit of generalized data included in the package. And there is a discussion of state comparisons here.

I'm looking at that here. But the specifics of the plan in front of us, who actually engineered the concept of the bill that is actually in front of us? Rep. Senator Story. Thank you.

Co-chair Foster, through the chair to Rep. Bynum. So Augenblick, Palish and Associates made recommendations to this body in 2015. That they recommended using a 3-year averaging. And they also recommended the averaging at the 100 and 425 student population and facility— facilities constituting a school, which means if I'm of a school size of 100 and I go to 101, I can then have 2 schools because I've gotten over that mark. So I can have a K-6 in a 612.

And same with 425. If you go over that mark, you can have 3 schools. And so what's happened and what was a problem, and this was identified, was if I'm a school such as Skagway— it's one of my schools, they've had that problem— and they drop below— they drop to 99, all of a sudden they have a significant loss of revenue in the middle of October, in the middle of their current year, and they have to all of a sudden adjust $300,000 or whatever. Significant. And so Augenblick, Palish and Associates, in reviewing the formula and talking to our education communities, made a recommendation that we switch to averaging.

So those are the two things they recommended for this bill. What I have brought into this bill, the other things about the alternative schools, um, that was based on, um, conversation with, um, my superintendent with how this alternative schools funding has not been working out for alternative school students. And we've heard testimony on that from the Kenai District and for a couple of others. So we're trying to meet the needs there. And then also in doing the averaging, it was added in there after Talking to education people about the 5%.

That was something that we added in this bill, that if you have a population increase of over 5%, then you can take your current year funding, not the previous year, the 3-year averaging, but the current year, because you want to make those student needs. And then DEED would true up with that, you know, at the end of the year and give them that money. And so I'm trying to think if I've forgotten I've got another point. Where's my— can I see them? So I believe those are the 4 components, and if I have that one sheet, I can just verify that.

But those 2 things were based on working with education partners and seeing the needs. [SPEAKING SPANISH] Through the chair. Representative Bynum. Follow-up. Thank you, Representative Story.

Yes, thank you for that. Yeah, I have the study here. This was from 2015. Yes. And it does talk about this declining enrollment issue and then using this smoothing of the 3-year average.

But in your plan, you also use— and I agree with you to say that if all of a sudden we have a bigger need in this one year, that we use our current method, which is we do a true-up basically then the year to accommodate, and so that the school can be assured, uh, that they have this higher student count. Although we technically aren't going to know that that's the case until we do go through the count process. So you have October, and then you're going to have this follow-up, and then you're going to actually get a true-up— true-up based on the, the formulas we have. So, but there is the element that says that, that if your ADM was higher, you can use the previous year ADM that was higher than your 3-year average. Was that an element that you also added?

Because I didn't see that in the study. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Through the chair, yes, I did add that in there again based on talking with our education partners because again, wanted to respond to not having to wait, have the districts wait for a whole other year to be able to have more more investment to serve those students in that current year. And of course, certainly in October when the students have arrived and they've gone through the count, the districts have an idea of what they're going to have, but it still has to be verified. And then I did want to also say that there was another part of the bill I remembered.

I knew there was something else, and that was on the intensive count. You know, that was not commented on by Augenblick, Palish and Associates. But again, we took, in fact, when this bill first started, I had taken an averaging of the intensive students, 3-year averaging, and then we ended up taking that out, the committee substitute did, because again, wanted to just use the prior year because we thought that would be really accurate because when you have intensive students, they are very complex students and lots of times families have, they hope, have a support team for their child and there's not as much moving around because once you get a team set in place you don't want to move around. So we thought taking the prior year would be good. But then we allowed for a true up in February and that was a recommendation.

Being a former school board member, I've been part of the resolutions process when I was on the board for 15 years and I haven't been on the board since 2018. But they have had a resolution for several years on the books ASB, and that is that the legislature would true up in February the intensive count because if that student comes after the October 20-day count, they most likely— those students usually you have to hire a staff person for them. And so you have to hire a staff person after the student count when your revenue has come in for the year and you don't know. So we added that for the intensive students.

Thank you. Through the chair, I will concede that when we deal with the intensive needs, the SPED multiplier, that this is a very challenging space. And I've said it already in this committee that I think it's one of our biggest risks that we face. There's obviously federal law that drives a lot of this, and then how we respond to that federal law.

I look forward to the day that we actually have a real comprehensive look at this issue. I think it does have a direct impact on what's happening in our schools currently and where we will be going in the future. So, uh, this bill absolutely doesn't solve that, um, or even begin to solve that. And so it begins to give us a struggle with how do we then create or deal with the problem that we're trying to solve here, and that is, uh, making sure that we have certainty for funding for schools when we have this complex problem in the middle of it. One of the other issues that have come— that I'm thinking about that I know is that leads us to where we are today is dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.

When we look back at the 2015 study, we had declining enrollment in our schools, and it's generally based off of the economic conditions of the state and where we see shrinking communities. I can use District 1 as an example of that. We have seen that in District 1 where we've had this year-over-year slow decline many factors that are in— many factors contributing to that. We're obviously trying to do better, grow our communities, do different things. But that really led to this idea of saying, how do we deal with this declining enrollment, built-up infrastructure?

I mean, many of our districts are facing it with school closures. How do we deal with those assets? But the COVID-19 pandemic influenced something very different in our schools. Number one, we had a large influx of money. Number two, we had a large buildup of staff.

Number three, we had a lot of students leaving, leaving our brick-and-mortar institutions for different reasons. And I don't know— this is just— I just don't know, and maybe you do, how we are adjusting to that. And is part of this problem that we're looking at trying to solve here is it because of that? And if so, when do we expect to see stabilization from that? Rep. Sims-Torey.

Co-chair Foster, thank you. Through the chair, Rep. Byam, when I've been talking with the school business officials about trying to get some modeling and looking at our trends, they very much pointed out COVID-19. It's hard to look at the numbers there when you're averaging because it was such a different swing. I know, I believe that they would say many of the students with the steep enrollment drops have come back or slowly coming back into the schools. Some have stayed in correspondence programs.

I think it's important to note we have about 20% of our students in correspondence and 80% of our students in our neighborhood schools. And so, um, I think that as we go along.

I think that we are adjusting to have a coming out of that COVID time and how the trends are going. They seem to have settled down a little bit. This is a quick follow-up. Thank you, Coach Foster, through the chair. I would agree with, uh, from what I've heard, that some of that is, is, um, what's happening.

But I also think that what's happened, or what's just happening, is, is that we're seeing some of the students that had left It's not that they came back, it's that they graduated out of the programs they were in, and we're seeing new students starting to come into the system. And so we're seeing this wave or cohort of younger students now repopulating our system as, as we get new students in. Parents have obviously decided in some cases to keep their kids in those alternative programs, and/or when they're— if they have older children in those programs, their younger children are coming in and they're keeping them in those programs. So it would be interesting to see if there was any direct evidence or data that answers that question and can inform us of what we would expect to see as we would go out another 10 years from now. Would that trend continue or change?

Thank you for that. Okay. No comments or—. No, yeah, I can try and get more information on that in talking with our education partners, you know, what they see on that. But I do think overall that it is settling down.

I did want to say that one of the reasons when we went with the 5% increase— another way, if your student count, if it's over 5%, you can get funds in that current year— was we just had Typhoon Hilong, and we had a huge— the Anchorage had a huge increase in the number of students that they were serving. And I know Deed worked well with the Anchorage School District and with their current school districts to to work together to make those students— make sure those students were needed. But I know with my district.

District, we are hoping that we will get some Coast Guard icebreakers online, and we, we project having some more students. And we— they wanted to make sure there was something in statute that said if we have a significant increase, we will be able to, you know, have those dollars to serve those new students possibly coming in with new economic activity coming in. I appreciate it. And Coach Air Force, just really quick, I wanted to put on the record, if that's okay. [SPEAKING SPANISH] I fully understand the need for stability, that when we have students coming into our school district and leaving our school district, that trying to create a system that provides stable services, you cannot, it cannot be that elastic.

And I understand that. And so we have a complex problem here. And trying to get the data and information to give— make sure that we're giving an informed policy decision, I think, is an important part of that. But I do recognize that we do want that stability. I, I get the idea that if we have 3 special needs students all of a sudden leaving our district and going away, that you've hired people to take care of them and you just don't fire them.

Or you have an influx of students, you have to be able to adjust to that. And if you have an influx leave You're just not able to be that elastic when you're developing programs and you're creating space as far as facilities and trying to get expertise and having expertise capable and able and ready. Those things all take time, money, and effort. And so I fully understand that. And so any pushback on this is not because I don't understand the complexities of that need.

It's just that this is a big policy decision. And we want to make sure that it is going to at least help solve the problem, because I'd hate to make a policy decision that doesn't actually solve the problem, because that's our goal here. So I just want to put that on the record. Representative Mallard. Uh, I'm just— I'm confused with the numbers.

What I mean by confused with the numbers, I just don't see a clear layout of the numbers. I mean, yes, we got students from the disaster that happened, but I'm also concerned that that was 1 to 200, but we lost 1,200 students. I'm going to use Anchorage School District as an example because if Anchorage School District is fully aware that their enrollment is declining on the average of 500 kids per year over the last 15 years, any business that knows that they're declining They don't just keep asking for more money from their investors. They're trying to figure out a way to stop the decline or adjust to the decline. That's not what this bill is doing.

So I'm super concerned that we're just blowing smoke right now because there's no real facts in this bill, and I'm a little concerned that we're sort of wasting our time without facts in front of us on a bill that It's a substantial fiscal note. So I think, Representative Story, I appreciate you still trying to think out of the box and trying to get this fixed, but to compare this bill to 2015 when we had a slight growth and then all of a sudden, boom, it goes all the way down, I don't think it's fair to use that 2015 if we've had a decline over the last 15 years, basically since my kids have been in school here. So I guess if you're going to bring it forward, I— we can still go through everything and we'll just go with a whole bunch of questions and try to figure out our own numbers and bring it to the table. But I do honestly appreciate you trying to figure out how to fix something. Uh, got a little ways to go though, for sure.

We'll come to something. Thank you. Thank you, Rep Story. Rep Story? Yes, thank you for those comments.

I wanted to say that Across the country, people are grappling with how do we handle trends in student enrollment, and that's going to happen. But I want to say the facts of this bill— facts of this bill is we really can make a better climate for our school districts by doing this, by giving them a student count number July 1st and having them go through with a number that has been set based on verified data from DEED as they go forward for that year, because One of the most important things, and you guys all, I know, get this, is being able to give our staff contracts earlier in the year in March. And if we can stop that big, that big layoff notice, those pink slips, notice of non-retention, that is huge for this state right now. When we let students, when we let teachers go, and then when we come in with our funding in May, we are You know, we are a business where who lets teachers go, gives them a notice in, you know, in April, and then hires them back when we finish our budget in May? They have mortgages, maybe they have— they have to have a job.

And so they're going to start looking around, and there we are in a time of a teacher shortage, and they're not going to wait to see if we come through with funding. And so that's one fact that we know by giving them certainty with the student count number July 1st, it really can help with the system. Yes, we still need to figure out trend lines. That would be helpful information, but it is a smoothing. 26 Other states use it.

It is helping them provide more stability. I want to get rid of those headlines about how we providing so much instability for, for our communities. Representative Gelman. Thank you. I'll try to be as brief as I can.

I have mostly comment, if I could please, and this is related to our concerns around lower student counts that we know we have, particularly in our district, Anchorage, in over the last now it has been 15 years, there is documentation of lower student counts. At the same time, we have not kept up with the inflationary costs of delivering education. So I just want to make sure that we are, you know, comparing the right numbers here because that is an important data point. If we're not— it's true that we are losing students, and so that means through the BSA there will be fewer dollars. But what this bill does, I think, is very important because it's looking at finding ways to make sure that as we change— and it can get bigger or smaller on occasion, but right now we're seeing mostly smaller— that we are delivering that consistency so that those board members especially who are making decisions around what programs to keep, not keep, but also for the high-need students that you have mentioned.

I appreciate that, that we keep that in place. Even gifted programs, transportation programs, all these different things that we are deciding in each year. Now we are deciding them each year based on not keeping up with the cost of education per student regardless of the change of students. So if you include also the change of students, that even adds that much more uncertainty for these board members trying to figure out how many dollars they have the next year. This is one really great solution that you've brought to the table, that rounding sense.

I appreciate that. I do think it's the beginning of helping us understand what to do. It's not perfect, and I would like to see a lot more documentation as the years progress to understand whether or not this is the right answer, should it be tweaked a bit. But I just wanted to say that I think this is— we could talk this to death because everybody is always looking for more numbers that aren't actually there to figure out if this solves the problem. But the numbers aren't there yet because we can't know.

I can share that in my district alone, especially in the more— the high-need schools like the Title I schools, I have more than 40% transient rate in one of my schools. If you can imagine what that looks like to a student, let me tell you, it is crazy. Let alone to the staff themselves and the leadership of that school. So in seeing that and witnessing that and talking to the educators and the students, I really appreciate how hard it is when so many students are moving in and out of classrooms. And I recognize that you are talking about in and out of districts, and that is important as well.

But I want to bring that up because what What we're looking at doing is making sure that whatever the student experience is, that their teaching and learning is still in that same level of continuity that we know is important, particularly for our higher-need students. That level of care, as much as we can deliver, I think is so important. I think we make a lot of decisions here at the table not knowing whether or not it actually solves the problem. But based on some evidence which I appreciate you presented here with regard to other states, I am given more confidence with this— with this as being one part of the solution. I think the other part of the solution though is our understanding the numbers down the line, our understanding that yes, this is going to cost money because what we're trying to do is deliver continuity and that's rough.

When we're seeing lots of changes in population.

I look forward to the day when we are not sitting at the table groveling over whether or not we can afford to keep a special education teacher in a school when we know that that student has moved to another place. I think it is rough. And so I just wanted to comment about that, and I appreciate you giving me the chance to say a few words. This is a heated conversation because I think we all care about kids and we also are always looking for— I'll call it accountability for the dollars we are putting into anything that is student services. I get that too.

But this is a good solid piece of the puzzle and I thank you for it. Okay. One more and then we are going to take a break here. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

Appreciate that. To Representative Story, You were making the comments about the pink slips, and I've alluded to this before. I absolutely don't like that either, and I think that we need to stop treating our teachers like ad hoc employees. And that's exactly what we do through this process. And when I brought this up before, I've been talking about it outside of the finance chamber, I was told, well, this is how we've always done it.

Well, we're sitting here today with problems, and I continue to hear this being a problem. And so maybe it's time for us to look at a different way of doing it. And, uh, what we're doing now is not working, and I don't think it's good for the teachers, and I don't think it's good for our schools, and it's definitely not good for our kids. So I look forward to working together, not just with you but with the rest of my colleagues here, to come up with a solution so we can stop doing that. And I don't think money is the only thing that's going to do it.

I think it's policy change and procedural change and how we actually treat our system that we currently are operating under to look at a future way, a better way of doing it. So I'm going to take a break here unless we do have more comments. Did you have more comments, Representative Sprague? I just wanted to wrap up, just comment with Rep. Bynum. Yeah, very much I believe everyone around the table wants to be able to give our teachers contracts and certainty.

I know by statute of each year we have a deadline of when to let our staff know if they're going to be possibly non-retained. And again, it's just so that staff person They need to have employment in the fall to make their living expenses. And so if they're not going to get certainty here, they're going to have to look around and see how they can— where they can get a job. And with this process, this is one thing we can do so we don't have to give as many pink slips out. And this is based on data.

This is what districts— other districts, 26 others have gone to 3-year averaging. To sort of head off these problems that we're facing here. Okay. I don't see any further comments, so I'll take that as a wrap-up. And we're going to go ahead and cancel tomorrow— tomorrow's meeting, that's Saturday.

And our next meeting will be scheduled for Monday, May 4th at 9:00 a.m. And at that meeting we'll be hearing Senate Bill 214. That's the capital budget. I think that's still on the docket for Monday. And then we also have public testimony for Senate Bill 130. That's the Fisheries Production Development Tax Credit bill.

And then we'll also be hearing the House Bill 104. That is the Address Confidentiality Program. And so if there's nothing else to come before the committee, we'll be adjourned at 2:59 PM. Thank you.