House Finance, 4/22/26, 9am

Okay, I'm going to call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order. Let the record reflect that the time is currently 9:09 AM on Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026. And present today, uh, we have, um, let's see, Representative Allard will be here in a bit. She's in Senate Finance, but we do have with us Representative Moore, Representative Bynum, Representative Kocher-Schragg, Representative Kocher-Josephson, Representative Jimmy, Representative Galvin, Representative Tomaszewski, Representative Hannon, myself, Kocher-Foster. And if folks can mute their cell phones, we have one item on the agenda today, and that is House Bill 261.

That is education funding, and this is an introduction. We'll hear from sponsor, we'll take invited testimony, We will review the fiscal notes, and then we do have a hard stop at 10:00, so probably adjourn just before 10:00, maybe shoot for 9:55. And so with that, I'd like to invite up Representative Story as well as her staff, Ms. Tammy Smith. And let's see, also available for questions questions after the presentation. We'll have Mr. Justin Silverstein, education consultant and one of the primary authors of the 2015 report, Review of Alaska's School Funding Program.

And so with that, Representative Storey, good morning. Good morning. Thank you so much, everyone. Good to see you today. For the record, I am Andy Storey, proudly serving District 3, which is the northern Mendenhall Valley here in Juneau, Fritz Cove Road, Auke Bay, Out the Road, Haines, Skagway, Klukwan, Indigus, Davis.

I'm also joined by my staff member Tammy Smith. Today I have the pleasure of introducing House Bill 261, an act relating to education funding. This bill reforms, changes to our flawed budgeting process that families, students, and staff and communities go through yearly. The current timing of the education budget, the October 20-day pupil count process, contract renewals, and the legislative process make for an uncertain budget environment. Some of the proposed changes in House Bill 261 Starting the budget process by using an average of the prior 3-year student count were recommended more than a decade ago in a study titled Review of Alaska's School Funding Program that the legislature commissioned in 2015.

And again, the Task Force on Education Funding heard from the author this past November task force meeting. We heard that over 26 states use an averaging student count process. One of the authors of the study, Justin Silverstein from Augenblick, Palish and Associates, is online and available for questions this morning. I have some more opening remarks and then a short PowerPoint presentation for you. I want to stress, and many of you understand, that the education funding process in Alaska is broken and it needs to be fixed.

It is the norm that communities do not know their funding levels until after critical staffing program decisions have been made and local municipalities have finalized their budgets. Last year, community and districts didn't know their current budgets until right before school started. This uncertainty alarms families, damages staff morale, worsens teacher retention, and erodes confidence in our public education. Our backwards budgeting process creates an annual roller coaster. The purpose of this bill is to ensure a timelier education funding process and the ability to offer our educators and staff a contract earlier in the spring.

This means that districts do not need to be as concerned about unexpected changes in student enrollment at the time of the October student count and when teacher and staff contracts have already been signed for the year. This timeline better meets municipal statute budgeting deal deadlines due in March or April. House Bill 261 reforms student enrollment changes by allowing districts to budget using the greater of either the average of the prior 3-year student counts, also known— student counts are also known as the average daily membership, or ADM, or districts can use the previous fiscal year student count ADM for funding for the school year. So communities will know their budget amounts starting July 1st of the school year. Remember, education budgets are set in 2 ways.

One, by student counts, which is conducted during a 20-day count period in October, and two, by any increases to the base student allocation. This bill, by having a student count number July 1st and not dependent on the current year October student count, allows districts to then offer teacher and staff contracts earlier in the spring, enabling districts to retain experienced, beloved teachers, and hire new teachers when recruitment is in full, full swing, rather than waiting until late spring or right before school starts when talented candidates are limited, especially during this national teacher shortage. Importantly, this bill gives school communities time to focus on effective instruction and improving student achievement rather than deciding what to cut and doing and redoing budgets. Providing a stable, sensible budget process timeline creates more stability and less stress for our communities. These changes remove some guesswork and provide for more stability.

In addition, there are a few other changes in House Bill 261. That I will address in the PowerPoint, which I'd like to go to right now, if that is all right, Chair. Okay. I'd like to recognize that we do also have with us Representative Stapp. And maybe we're going to— if we could hold questions until the very end.

We do have a presentation. We've got 3 invited testifiers, and it would be great if we could get through that, and then if we've got time for questions, we'll do that. So with that, is your trustee staff going to walk us through that? Yeah, I'm going to go through the PowerPoint and Tammy will help us as we move along here. Okay.

Great. Representative Storey? Yes, thank you. So this is about the education funding process. So as I said in my opening remarks, the current education funding process in Alaska is broken.

And there is a little timeline here and I want— it starts at the top with the student counts collected. And remember, by Alaska Statute 14-17-600, districts must report enrollment based on a 20-day student count period ending the 4th Friday in October. The count determines student aid. And so each October the districts are doing their 20— Period counts, and this sets the budget for— it actually sets the budget for this year. So the student counts are due to DEED by the second week in November, and the governor uses these count numbers to set his education budget funding for the next year.

In the meantime, January, February, March, communities, school boards are looking at what their student count number is and their projections for the next year and making budget decisions which need to be to the municipalities by February, March, April, depending upon their local statutes. Its ultimate— the optimal recruiting season is March and April, and around this time Usually late March, DEED is finalizing the student count enrollment numbers. They're verifying, do the districts have the students they say they do? Sometimes there are discrepancies. Two districts have claimed the same students or they've moved and they need to figure that out.

And so then they have the student count number and districts know by that October student count if what they projected, the student students coming is right on par. They have a really good idea. And remember, if they have a student shortage, they have already signed their teacher contracts for the year and they have got to think, how am I going to true up in the end because I know I am going to be short enrollment if they have less students. So it affects the current school year, but it is also affecting the next school year because those are the numbers that will be verified by DEED and that will be used for the budget process. In the meantime, we are up here talking about education funding.

And we will finalize our budget in May probably of this year. And then districts will need to redo and shuffle their budgets. Meanwhile, that uncertainty exists and we have all been reading about it in the papers. So— and then the fiscal year starts July 1st. So just wanted to walk you through that.

That is probably the longest time I will take on this PowerPoint slide here. And then the last slide just is something I've stressed. This process undermines families and communities and businesses' confidence in our education system. There's stress, there's uncertainty, increased turnover, negative impacts on our economy. Then there is another way.

There is another way. And that is student count alternatives. 26 Other states do a 3-count averaging. We do have, as I said, Justin Silverstein on the line for any questions about this page. I just— this was a page out of the PowerPoint that the Education Funding Task Force went over in November of this past year.

So then on the next page, what this bill does, which I took from the recommendations of that report in 2015 and the task course, it would take the prior 3-year average, uh, student count, the prior 3 years, or you could take the previous year student count. And so districts— those numbers have been verified, they still have to be verified, as they should, by DEED every year. And then the district can start July 1st knowing their student count number. It's an appropriately timed budget process.

It just— to me, the biggest thing here that I'm— well, there's a lot of things in here— is it allows for our teacher and staff contracts to be signed earlier in March or April. You can let those experienced teachers know you are going to have a job in the fall. You're not going to get a pink slip. And then, of course, I said our funding formula is based on two things. Student counts and the base student allocation.

So this is just one thing we can fix in our process. We still always will be talking about the base student allocation and when we should— that should be adjusted. And but anyway, it looks so based on those funding, you might not be able to give a contract to your newer teachers because you don't maybe not know the amount. You're hopefully for more. But for those beloved teachers, you know, you're going to have your student count numbers, the majority of them, and you can go ahead and offer them a contract.

So that really appeals to me. I just wanted to have a sheet here. 261 Calls for the calculation of a district student count for a fiscal year to be based on the greater of. So a district does have the choice. They can take the 3-year prior average or the previous year ADM for the district calculation.

Why I picked the prior year, um, two, there's— because our student counts are not verified till March or April, so you cannot take an average of the, uh, the prior year 3-year student count. You cannot put the current year in that because it's not finalized when you have to have it by July 1st. So I'm giving them the option to to take the current year because that will be finalized in, in April. And if you've got an increase in enrollment that's higher than that 3-year average, you're going to want to take that. You've got students to serve and you're going to need to budget with that.

Next one. Oh, this one was also recommended in the report. Facilities constituting a school. This is Alaska Statute 14-17-905, and I wasn't as familiar with the statute, but my superintendent in Skagway had drawn this to my attention, and so I noticed— I noted it more in the report. When you are— a community decides, um, when you're a 100 or 425 student school, you can go from one— if you go over 100, you can go from one school to having two schools.

Meaning you can do a K-6 and then a high school program, 6-12. If you drop to 99 students, you lose that two-size school funding, which is like a $300,000— it's a huge cut. So in the middle of the year, you would get this huge cut, um, just devastating to your, your program. And so this smooths those funding cliffs. This happens at 100 and 425 students, and it is in statute there.

You can look it up and that will help you understand that better. So then another thing, and as the intensive needs student count— intensive needs students have complex needs and may require additional staffing to meet their individual education plans. This bill permits a district to adjust the intensive student count mid-year to accommodate intensive students who are new to the district after the current count date. So districts may use a previous fiscal year— they have 3 choices here. They may use their previous fiscal year, the current fiscal year, and there will be an adjustment on February 15th if they have received more intensive student counts.

Now remember, intensive students, they get 13 times the funding of a regular student, and those students have complex needs. They have to make a certain— meet a certain checklist. It has to be verified, and they always have staff that come with them. They need intensive help. And so when I first— this, this, the first bill in House Education had an averaging of the 3 years of the intensive student count.

They removed that because the averaging inflated maybe the numbers. You would be double paying for intensive student counts, so it wouldn't— was a significant cost. And so we assessed that and we would base it on this the previous year, so it's just more accurate. And then why we— you could also pick the current year is because of the high expense. And so if you got a student that year, you were hiring somebody, and so that was a adjustment.

And then the taking the new count on February 15th has been long sought after by school districts. It's been a resolution from the Alaska Association of School Boards for over a decade because these students need funding. And if they come in the middle of the year, you are having to hire someone. And so this would give funding. And so two slides left here.

The other two things that are changed in this bill is alternative schools with an ADM student count of fewer than 175 students would be counted as their own school rather than as part of the biggest school in the district. Uh, this has been cited by several districts who have alternative schools. If you have a school, a high school of over 750 students, your alternative school is counted in with that district, with that size school, and those schools Their school size is like, well, in Juneau it's like 0.84. So the funding is 0.84, and so the alternative school gets 0.84 for each of those students. But that school has students who are there because they have complex needs.

Oftentimes you want to have a counselor there, there's other things happening, and so this would give them their own school size to account for what school size they are. And then the other one is, uh, districts may use the current fiscal your ADM if the district student count numbers are over 5% in increased enrollment. There was concern by community school communities that if I got a big increase in enrollment of over 5% and I'm— I have to use last year's student count, I won't be able to offer the class— reasonable class sizes I want, the course offerings. And so that adjustment is in there because people are saying, what if I get a big increase? And then the other important thing in this bill is it, it removes the hold harmless factor that is currently in there.

If you have a drop in enrollment of over 5%, you would get a hold harmless factor. It removes that. It does grandfather in those districts who are in Hold Harmless status, but that would taper out and then we would go to this 3-year student count averaging process. In summary, I really believe it's time to fix the flawed education funding process, focus on student achievement. House Bill 261 is one step forward.

Education funding needs still need to be resolved. This is student counts, it's just one part. The BSA will always be a conversation. And I'm not to say that districts are not focusing on student achievement right now. Of course they are.

That's what we want. But I'm just saying that right now our process has got us in turmoil. And we, we have the power to smooth that out, fix it, and take this step that many other states have taken. Thank you for that. And my state, Staff can go through the sectional analysis right now if you would like, and then we have our invited testifiers.

Thank you very much, Representative Story. We have about 25 minutes left, and I would like to allow the testifiers to be able to testify and not have to come back at another meeting. So what I would like to do is jump right into that, and then we will open up for questions, and at a future meeting we can look at the sectional. And so with that, if folks do have questions, feel free to let me know and I will keep a list of the order in which folks are going to ask questions. So with that, first person we have got online is Michael Robbins, Superintendent of Schools for the Bristol Bay Borough School District.

If you could put yourself on the record.

Good morning. For the record, my name is Michael Robbins, Superintendent of Schools of the Bristol Bay Borough School District. And I serve as an officer of the Alaska Superintendents Association. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of HB 261. For small rural schools like Bristol Bay Borough School District, stability matters just as much as the overall amount of funding.

Our district cannot absorb student sudden swings in enrollment the same way a large urban district can. Losing or gaining only a handful of students can have a major impact on staffing, programming, and operations. An important provision in this bill is a hold harmless transition language. Under current law, some districts are already in hold harmless status because of declining enrollment. Bristol Bay happens to be one of those.

HB 261 wisely, wisely recognizes that districts already relying on those protections should not suddenly lose them. The committee substitute allows districts that are currently in Hold Harmless or that qualify by July 1, 2026 to continue using the existing Hold Harmless formula until they are no longer eligible. This—. That is extremely important for Bristol Bay and other small districts because it prevents a sudden funding cliff. It means districts will not have the rug pulled out from under them overnight.

Instead, they can continue operating under the protection they had already planned around while gradually transitioning to the new funding model. The other major strength of the bill is the move to student count averaging. Instead of basing funding on only on one October count, the bill allows districts to use whichever is greater: the prior 3-year average ADM, the previous ADM or the current year's ADM if enrollment increases by at least 5%. The 5% increase provision is in the bill. If a district experienced enrollment growth of 5% or more, it may use the higher current year count rather than waiting an entire year for that growth to be recognized in the formula.

That is very important for districts that experience sudden change because of housing, economic activity, workforce shifts, or families moving into a community. Without this provision, a district could have many more students to serve but still would be funded at the lower prior level. For Bristol Bay, this means the bill protects districts on both sides. It protects districts from sudden loss when enrollment drops and allows districts to benefit more quickly when enrollment rises significantly. Another important strength is that the bill smooths out the funding cliffs around 100 students and 425 students.

For small communities falling just below one of those— and Bristol Bay does— of these thresholds can create a very large reduction in funding even if only a few students leave. HB 261 allows the district to use the 3-year average or prior year count for those school size calculations. Calculations as well. This means— that means a school does not lose major funding because of one temporary dip in enrollment. The bill also improves budgeting timelines, and Representative Story discussed this in her presentation.

Districts will now know their funding earlier and can offer contracts earlier in the spring. This halts the exhaustive cycle of having to do your initial budget not knowing the funding you will receive and then redoing the budget, then redoing the budget, and then redoing the budget again in the spring. That helps districts retain teachers, recruit new staff, reduce uncertainty, avoid rounds of pink slips and last-minute cuts, and the continuous problems that we have when it comes to community trust in our schools. Districts still need a meaningful increase to the BSA. In addition to these important reforms, a more stable The new funding formula is helpful, but stability alone is not enough.

If the base out amount is too low to cover rising costs for salaries, utilities, fuel, insurance, transportation, and student services, it will be difficult to make ends meet. For Bristol Bay and other rural and remote districts, both pieces are necessary: a stronger funding formula and a higher base student allocation. Overall, HB 261 creates a more predictable and stable funding system for small districts like Bristol Bay. The hold harmless transition language is especially important because it ensures districts that are already relying on those protections are not harmed during the changeover. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Hoi ana. Thank you very much, Mr. Robbins. If you could hold on the line, we have two other testifiers, and I'd like to to make sure we, uh, let them provide their testimony, and then we'll come back to questions. So next up, we've got Mr. Clayton Holland, Superintendent with the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District. If you could put yourself on the record.

Thank you, Chair and members of the House Finance Committee. For the record, my name is Clayton Holland. I serve as the Superintendent for the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, and I'm also the immediate past president of the Alaska Superintendent Association. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of House Bill 261. At its core, HB 261 is about bringing a greater predictability to how school districts plan and budget.

In Alaska, as you know, we do not have forward funding or any requirement that education funding must be determined early in the legislative session. The districts are required to plan and budget much sooner than when we receive our actual revenue amount from the state. In districts with the borough, we are required to submit a balanced budget in the spring. For the Keenei, that means submitting a balanced budget to the borough by May 1st. This creates a situation where we are making major financial decisions about staffing, programs, and in some cases even school closures without knowing what our actual revenue will be.

Because of that uncertainty, districts are often forced to plan cautiously. That could mean making deeper reductions than may ultimately be necessary or delaying decisions that impact students, staff, and communities. It becomes a cycle of building a budget, revising it, and rebuilding it yet again as new information becomes available. This is not a stable or effective way to run a school system. It also directly impacts our ability to hire and retain staff.

When we are building budgets without clear funding, we often delay offering contracts and delay hiring into the late spring and even summer. During that time, strong candidates are making decisions, we lose good staff, often to opportunities outside of Alaska, and then find ourselves trying to fill positions much later with a smaller pool of qualified applicants. At this time in the KPBSD, we've yet to offer our non-tenured teachers contracts, and because of this, have not begun hiring new teachers for positions that likely be— are likely to become open once we know what our actual revenue will be for the upcoming year. HB 261 helps address this by allowing districts to base funding on a more stable student count, including the use of a 3-year average of prior year counts, whichever is greater. This change gives us a much more reliable foundation for projecting enrollment and building a responsible budget.

It provides something that we can actually plan around. This bill also improves predictability for intensive needs students. Today, districts often don't know how many students will qualify year to year for intensive needs funding, which leads us to budget on the lower end and often under the projected needs. While that may reduce financial risk on paper, it creates real challenges in practice. These are some of our highest-needs students, and when we under-project, we run the risk of not being fully prepared to meet their needs.

HB 261 will help us be ready to serve our most at-risk students immediately. Finally, the bill addresses about how alternative schools are funded. In our district, alternative programs at Keene Alternative and Homer Flex serve students who have not found success in traditional settings. These programs are crucial to improving graduation rates and keeping students engaged in school, thereby improving their chance at life success. Under the current law, alternative schools are often grouped with the largest school in the district for funding purposes.

Which results in them being funded at far less than full level. That does not reflect the reality of how these programs operate or the level of supports the students need. HB 261 allows these schools to be counted as their own sites. That change more accurately reflects their structure and gives districts the ability to staff these programs appropriately without creating a financial deficit for the district. In closing, HB 261 provides districts with better tools for planning, reduces uncertainty, and helps ensure that more funding, excuse me, that funding more closely matches the students we serve.

It allows us to spend less time reacting to uncertainty and more time focused on what matters the most, which is improving student outcomes. Thank you for your time and consideration. Great, thank you very much, Mr. Holland. If you could also stay on the line. And last up, we have Katie Parrott, President of the Alaska Association of School Business Officials.

And the Senior Director for the Office of Management and Budget for the Anchorage School District. If you could put yourself on the record.

Yes, good morning. For the record, my name is Katie Parrott. I am the President of the Alaska Association of School Business Officials, and I also serve as a board member of the Alaska Council of School Administrators. Thank you so much, co-chairs, members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak in support of HB 261. One of the challenges for school districts in Alaska is in the budgeting and establishing programs and services year to year based on varying levels of uncertainty or fluctuation that's actually built into the system.

So many districts across the state have to have approved budgets completed for next year by March or April. Well before legislative action is taken that often directly impacts next school year. Um, however, we also have to have budgets that are established on, um, enrollment projections that aren't fully known or trued up until months later, uh, which is well into the fiscal year for which the budget has already been set. Um, so it's a system where school leadership and business officials are constantly playing catch-up to meet the needs of students. We're making multiple adjustments throughout the year to deal with what is really the inevitable variations between our projections and what we're actually seeing.

The current timeline for budgeting each year requires that we make calculated risks across several metrics that really truly impact how we do business. As, as you've seen, sometimes districts are making those calculated risks to try to figure out what legislative action is going to be worth setting a budget on. And you've seen that play out across the state for good and bad. Some school boards hear from the legislature that, you know, there's an expectation of a certain amount of funding. They base budgets on that, and sometimes that comes to fruition and sometimes not.

With student enrollment, we do have to submit projections for our general ed enrollments very early, um, and also for our intensive needs students. And both of those have some variation, fluctuations year to year that can truly impact us. Specifically with intensive needs students, a lot of times those, uh, services and programs that are required to meet the needs of their students cannot be easily absorbed. They're truly, uh, programs and services that have to be brought in mid-year regardless of whether or not we have accounted for those students in our budget and whether or not they make it through the certification process along the timeline that's established by the state. So really, the system is designed to not provide certainty in our budgeting process.

So removing any elements of uncertainty from that annual process is truly a win-win. When we provide mechanisms that smooth the year-to-year fluctuations and our reliance on projections as a whole, we'll just improve the system across the state. We, as has been mentioned by other testifiers, we do a lot of staffing decisions. We have layoff notification timelines that are established in statute months before we have information about what our actual our goals will be in some of those areas. And we're establishing our staffing for programs and services, what we're going to offer, what we're not going to offer, based on some of those projections that may not manifest.

Additionally, some of those decisions are really tough to unwind. Those services are really tough to bring back online if you realize additional funding late in the system. Additionally, we've made contracts to certain staff that if our projections fall short, we have a really difficult time trying to deal with the additional obligation there. Last but certainly not least, on behalf of my membership, we've also heard a lot about districts being administratively top-heavy, yet we have a system that requires a tremendous amount of administrative time and effort to deal with these fluctuations in the system. We spend an enormous amount of time and effort on the back and forth of the budgeting process and financial planning and truing up, you know, taking some of the guesswork out of that, taking some of the redundancy out of those processes truly benefits us all.

Additionally, we've heard the call from legislators and the public that we need to protect the classroom and we need to reduce administration. But the administrative tasks for managing the system haven't been reduced. So we're seeing turnover in our business operations positions within districts. It's a rising concern. And I think that we want to— districts as a whole want to be more efficient.

We want to increase our focus on working to improve outcomes and not managing administrative tasks in multiple rounds of budgeting. Multiple rounds of budget revision, I think that minimizing our use of projections is a very welcomed change. Uh, last but not least, the public really struggles with understanding the fluctuations in our process for how we set our budgets and then how we implement the educational programs year to year. And we hear and feel that in our communities all the time when unexpected dips in student enrollment or revenues happen. So establishing some smoothing in the system is a great move.

Uh, short of establishing a long-term fiscal plan and other structural changes to education funding, making these incremental adjustments to the current system is a step toward resolving, um, some of our chaos. And I believe HB 261 does that. Um, and it also deals with the transition from the current funding formula to a new model. It provides provides some ability to wade through those transitions in ways that don't negatively impact the districts. It accounts also for giving districts options for those very, very vast differences in the way that our districts are structured throughout the state.

So providing some avenues for flexibility to meet the needs of individual districts and regions. And, and giving us the ability to create some calm and predictability is really critical. So thank you for your time. Great, thank you very much, Ms. Parrott. Okay, questions from the committee?

I've got Representative Stab and Bynum, and, and so we'll open it up to the sponsor or any of the invited testifiers. Representative Stab? Yeah, I think, Coach, you're faster. I just want to go to Ms. Parrott real Real quick, Katie, thanks for testimony. Through the chair, I'm curious, I'm— I don't quite understand.

So when I look at your guys' budget schedule, to me, like, the most simplest thing that we could do other than maybe structurally change the foundation formula, as this bill looks at regarding hold harmless, just simply be to pass the education appropriation at the beginning of the legislative session. And I'm curious, from your perspective as the business manager of the school board and being on ALASBO, I mean, wouldn't that be probably the most expedient thing we could do would be to pass an education appropriation, say in February, through the chair? And that was for Ms. Parrott? Mm-hmm. Okay, Ms. Parrott?

Yeah, thank you. Through the chair to Representative Sapp, yes, that's another way that the legislature could provide some certainty in the system. But we would still be dealing with the issue of the fluctuation in enrollment. Um, and essentially this bill takes another element of that. So there's several elements built into our education funding model that create some uncertainty, or there's a lag in time and being able to plan.

And those are two different sides of the coin. So one, uh, would be, you know, the appropriation being early, that would help us tremendously in that area. But this also provides some certainty in not relying on projections for student enrollment and also being able to seek assistance in providing for the needs of intensive needs students. Okay, thanks. I felt Mr. Co-chair, this one's going to be the bill sponsor.

That's okay. Representative, yeah, thank you. Mr. Foster, through the chair, slide 8. Just out of curiosity, Rep. Story, again, thanks for being here. Staff.

So if you are going to do two intensive counts, one taken in October, one taken in February, what happens if you have less kids in intensive in February? Do you get less money or do you just hold them harmless? Rep. Sims story. Through the chair, thank you for that question, Rep. Stepp. That is a very good question.

They would get— the district could choose to do that third student count in February and they would only do it, of of course, if they got more students who are intensive needs. This bill would not take the money from the— would not remove the money if it was a difference. Say an intensive count moved from the Ketchikan School District to Fairbanks. It would not take Ketchikan District's staff away. They have a contract with that district that that district needs to obligate.

But also, I must point out, in special education, we have a shortage of special education teachers, that district would very much be putting that staff person to use. But we would not— we could not do that. They have a contract with that district. So follow-up, Mr. Kocher. Representative Snap.

So basically, let's just say I move from Anchorage to the Mat-Su in October, or let's say November. Are you telling me that that if I had an intensive needs child and they enrolled in St. Matthew's Borough School District, Anchorage would still be counting them and then Matthew would get to count them again on February 15th? Through the chair, yes, because that is how our student enrollment count works. If they are in that district in the 20-day period in October in Anchorage— Anchorage has hired somebody for that person. They have probably been there.

September, October, August, and they're serving them. And then when they move to the next district, that district has to serve them. And one of the reasons why there is a second student count is districts have identified that as a problem for several years because they are having within their budget having to find that significant amount of money to serve that student's needs. So it is a problem within our system. I follow, Mr. Co-Chair.

Representative Stout. This will be our last one through the chair. To the bill sponsor. So I mean, I actually kind of like the work that you have done regarding trying to remove some of the instability. I guess my only issue is you basically insulated the district from any of the downside and loss in enrollment and you are giving them all the upsides.

I guess to me if you are going to have a mechanic regarding stability, like they have to kind of— you can't insulate them from the downside. They have to have the upside and the downside of the change in demographic. I'm not quite sure how to do that in the bill. But very intentional to insulate districts from any downside loss in enrollment. So I'm just curious if you have any thoughts to that or you just like it the way it is through the chair.

Representative Story. Yes, thank you. Through the chair to Rep. Staff. Really who is being advantaged by that is our our children, our families, because they are getting more services if it's a lower class size because of that or an offering. And then you must remember that how this works on a 3-year averaging, the next year that district is not going to have that student in their, in their count wherever they move from the decrement.

And so it does smooth out with the next year because those numbers are going to be corrected by that verified October student count date. Sorry, follow up, Mr. Kricher. Follow up? Yeah. Well, couldn't they just use the current year?

You're given an option to use current year count and a 3-year average, right? So maybe my 3-year average was higher and then I just use current year. Couldn't they just use current year through the chair? Through the chair? Yes.

Yes, definitely. I would want them to use the current year. And in the statute it says in this bill that they will use the greater of either the prior 3-year average or the student count average because those students are there and we want to serve them. Thank you. And now final follow-up this time, Mr. Co-Chair.

Representative Snap. I fibbed earlier, sorry. Through the Chair, slide 9, alternative school counts for alternative schools less than 175 students. What is the impact in the foundation formula on the school size multiplier higher if you were to do that, through the chair, rather than count them as the biggest part of the school district. So you— Representative Story.

Through the chair, so if you are in a student— in a school of over 750, you get 0.84 for your factor number. If we move the alternative size schools, for the alternative schools, it depends upon their school size. And if you could look in the statutes for the school size adjustment. So if they were an 84 alternative school, they would get that school size adjustment. And I don't know that adjustment number off the top of my head, or if it was 75 or 50 or whatever that adjustment was.

Okay, thanks. Thank you. Let's see, we will go about 3 or 4 more minutes and then we will just pick up at the next session. Representative Bynum. Thank you, co-chair Foster.

Through the chair, just want to say appreciate Superintendent Robbins for calling in, prior superintendent my district. Have a good relationship. He's always been good to work with. And also Miss Parrott. So thank you guys for calling in and testifying and giving us that information.

I have lots of questions about this bill. We're not going to get them covered in this amount of time that we have, so I'm going to save most of them. But I do have some questions is about information. And when I look through the packet that we have here, I don't see any modeling of real-life modeling of if this were in place and we applied it to our school districts, what would it look like? I'm assuming that has been done.

Has that been done? Through the chair, yes, thank you. That is in the fiscal notes, which are in your packet. Okay, as a follow-up to that, I see the fiscal note, I read the fiscal note, it's It looks like it is an additional $113 million. I know we have declining enrollment, so when I see an equivalent of about a $450 BSA increase, it makes me wonder exactly how that modeling is actually being done.

So actually seeing the real-life modeling would be helpful. So if it is available, I would appreciate if it could be given to the community committee. And then when we have more time to talk about this, I really have some concerns about how we're dealing with the intensive needs. I know that in our current formula we have a 13 multiplier. In some districts, it could account for a third of the total funding that's coming through the foundation formula.

And so small changes in that number have dramatic changes on overall impact. And I don't see yet through any modeling or anything that was presented on how we are insulating ourselves from those dramatic swings. Swings and could have very big impacts on the school district. So I will look forward to hearing more about that and I will save the rest of my questions for the next time when we have more time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Representative Bynum. I will keep you at the top of the list for when we come back to this. Rep. Pastor, if I may. Sorry to interrupt you there. I just wanted to say Lori Weed has done all the calculations.

The modeling of how those numbers came about for each district. And she is, of course, with our legislative finance. So I will ask her to— maybe you want some examples of your district, maybe a couple examples. Is that what you wanted to clarify, what he was— what you were looking for, Rep. Bynum? Representative Bynum.

Well, thank you. Through the chair, thank you, Representative Story. I don't need just an example of my district. I mean, there's a lot of data out there and spreadsheets are wonderful things. I would like to see it for every district in the school— I mean, every school district that we have.

So I'm open to all of the information if it's available. Representative Story. Thank you. I will definitely share that with Ms. Weed. And then I just wanted to say on the intensive counts, they are very important.

They are very important to that family, to those students, and I appreciate that. I did want to say we do have Justin Silverstein on the line who works with student counts across the country and knows that districts use this 3-year averaging. And I can bring him back for more questions at our next meeting too, if he has the time. That would be great. Okay, so with that, our next meeting is scheduled for today at 1:30 PM, and at that meeting we have 2 items before us.

Hear a presentation on deferred maintenance, um, and then we will receive an introduction on Senate Bill 41, that is public schools mental health education. So if there's nothing else to come for the committee, we'll be adjourned at 9:56 AM.