Transcript Highlights:

• I'm sure you're feeling it in your communities, in your districts, and reading about the dozens of districts
• small rural districts.
• But I... ...district to district, and was very happy to be able to see that bill signed into law.
• “On these school districts as well.
• just like all districts.

Transcript Highlights:

• The support of the district.
• Allegations as it relates to our school districts, our public school districts.
• District had on.
• Districts are pressured.
• The school district has no control over the county appraisal district.

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• This relates to Conservation District Supervisors. Conservation districts...
• Conservation districts are special purpose districts that are organized to promote the conservation of
• Because most of our special interest districts like sewer districts and funeral districts or cemetery
• , dike and flood districts and ditch districts, in particular, one in South King County, which you can
• about district elections.

Summary: The committee first heard staff and sponsor testimony on House Joint Resolution 4210, which would remove constitutional limits on the length of regular legislative sessions and instead let the legislature set adjournment dates by statute. Rep. Breonna Thomas and supporters said the measure would give lawmakers flexibility to set a sustainable schedule and improve working conditions, while opponents argued it would concentrate more power in the legislature and could lead to a year-round session. No vote was taken on the resolution during the hearing. Members then heard House Bill 2520, which would clarify that county governing bodies may hold emergency special meetings outside the county seat or remotely during true emergencies and may act at such meetings even if the public cannot first listen in. Rep. Deborah Lekanoff said the bill was prompted by the Skagit Valley flooding and was meant to help local governments respond quickly in disasters. Testimony was split: counties and some others supported the clarification, while open government advocates urged tighter language defining “emergency” and limiting the bill to state or federally declared emergencies. The hearing was closed without a vote. The committee also took testimony on House Bill 2499, in proposed substitute form, concerning conservation district supervisors. The substitute would let conservation districts opt into the general election system under Title 29A, remove the landowner requirement, keep a farm-operator requirement for some seats, extend terms from three to four years, and require financial disclosure filings in some circumstances. Supporters argued the bill would modernize elections, increase transparency, and improve voter access; opponents warned it could be costly for small districts, reduce participation, and create unintended consequences. No final action was taken in the hearing portion shown. In executive session, the committee voted 7-0 to report House Bill 2408, a cleanup bill removing obsolete references to the Office of Financial Management, with a due pass recommendation. It also voted 5-2 to report House Bill 2435, creating a legislative office of Indian affairs, with a due pass recommendation; some members supported the bill as improving government-to-government relations with tribes, while others wanted a fiscal note before fully supporting it.

Transcript Highlights:

• or Senate district.
• 5 and Congressional District 6.
• Congressional District 5 and Congressional District 6.
• into that district.
• and House districts?

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• for certain school districts.
• districts.
• , not just the reception... ...the home district, not just the receiving district.
• Peninsula School District sits...
• homelessness in my district.

Summary: The committee first took executive action on House Bill 1662, which would require the State Board of Education, the Professional Educator Standards Board, the Financial Education Public-Private Partnership, and the Washington State Charter School Commission to make separate administrative arrangements and operate independently. Staff explained a proposed third substitute that delays implementation to July 1, 2027, clarifies independent agency status, and directs OFM and OSPI to support the transition. The prime sponsor and another member spoke in favor, emphasizing agency independence and better use of funds. The committee approved the bill 19-0 and reported the proposed third substitute out with a due pass recommendation. The committee then acted on House Bill 1683, which sets minimum numbers of school directors elected by director district for certain school districts. The substitute changed the enrollment thresholds, clarified the effective date, and removed intent language. Supporters argued it would improve parent and student representation; opponents said it would create an unfunded mandate and micromanage local districts. The committee passed the substitute 11-8 and reported it out with a due pass recommendation. In public hearing, House Bill 2534 was heard first. The bill would expand enrollment flexibility and record-transfer protections for military-connected students, including allowing enrollment before arrival, extending proof-of-residence timelines, and adding protections for students with IEPs or 504 plans. District, military, and advocacy witnesses generally supported the bill as promoting stability, though some asked for changes to a proposed 30-day reevaluation timeline and noted possible compact-related issues. The hearing then moved to House Bill 2557, which would require school districts to provide special education evaluation reports to parents at least five school days before eligibility meetings. Supporters said this would help families prepare and participate meaningfully; district and special education staff warned it could shorten already tight evaluation timelines and create implementation challenges. The committee suspended and later closed the hearing on that bill after time ran out, with the chair noting it could be eligible for executive action the following week. The final public hearing was on House Bill 2594, which would codify McKinney-Vento homeless student protections into state law, assign related duties to OSPI and school districts, and require periodic state reporting. The sponsor and numerous advocates, school district staff, PTA representatives, and individuals with lived experience testified in support, saying it would improve stability, accountability, and access to education for homeless students. One witness asked that grant funding explicitly include community-based organizations. The hearing closed after a large number of pro and some con sign-ins, and the chair also closed the hearing on House Bill 2557, noting amendment deadlines and that the bills could be eligible for executive action the next week.

Transcript Highlights:

• The good member from the 13th District, Representative... District Representative Vibara.
• , port districts... ...of the cities, counties, school districts, port districts, fire protection districts
• The covered jurisdiction, the naughty list municipality, port district, fire protection district, PUD
• District, the people of the 14th Legislative District, the people of the 14th and the 16th, all the
• So then I was elected in District 14. When I became mayor of District 15, Mr. Speaker.

Bills: HB1160 , HB1289 , HB1339 , HB1798 , HB1065 , HB1795 , HB2107 , HB2113 , HB2124 , HB2125 , HB2133 , HB2134 , HB2140 , HB2185 , HB2191 , HB2205 , HB2211 , HB2219 , HB2245 , HB2253 , HB2283 , HB2343 , HB2406 , HB2501 , HB2531 , HB2574 , HB1170 , HB1544 , HB1834 , HB2156 , HB2188 , HB2206 , HB2360 , HB2471 , HB2478 , HB2525 , HB2605 , HJM4012 , HB1104 , HB1152 , HB1254 , HB1443 , HB1710 , HB1750 , HB1903 , HB1941 , HB1974 , HB1982 , HB1983 , HB2006 , HB2034 , HB2105 , HB2179 , HB2203 , HB2215 , HB2223 , HB2239 , HB2247 , HB2297 , HB2303 , HB2322 , HB2329 , HB2334 , HB2338 , HB2345 , HB2348 , HB2350 , HB2353 , HB2355 , HB2363 , HB2367 , HB2379 , HB2388 , HB2399 , HB2418 , HB2420 , HB2428 , HB2441 , HB2462 , HB2464 , HB2467 , HB2495 , HB2505 , HB2534 , HB2539 , HB2544 , HB2551 , HB2554 , HB2557 , HB2575 , HB2577 , HB2588 , HB2594 , HB2604 , HB2636 , HB2714

Summary: The House took up second reading and final passage on several bills. House Bill 2575, relating to reducing certain environmental reporting obligations, was amended to direct savings from reduced utility reporting toward low-income electricity assistance, then passed 95-0. House Bill 2334, on cash transaction rounding for the loss of pennies, passed 89-6 after debate over common-sense rounding, tax treatment, and concerns about moving away from cash. House Bill 2714, updating caseload forecasting for food and nutrition assistance programs including SNAP, passed 95-0. Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2557, concerning parental access to special education evaluation meetings and timelines, passed 95-0 after a technical amendment clarifying terminology and discussion about giving parents more time to prepare for meetings. The House also passed Substitute House Bill 2594, which codifies protections for unhoused students and aligns state law with federal McKinney-Vento protections; supporters described the bill as ensuring continued educational access for homeless youth, and it passed 94-1. House Bill 2348, updating timber sale process efficiencies, including electronic notice and appraisal/approval requirements for certain land sales, passed 95-0. Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2215, dealing with Climate Commitment Act compliance obligations for fuels, drew extensive debate over market fairness, fuel prices, rural impacts, and Ecology’s authority; after adopting a striking amendment and rejecting several others, it passed 57-38. The House then considered House Bill 1710, a Washington Voting Rights Act compliance bill creating a new chapter in Title 29A RCW. Members debated numerous amendments focused on preclearance standards, lookback periods, fee shifting, rulemaking authority, settlement treatment, and the use of citizen voting-age population. Some technical amendments were adopted, while many substantive amendments were rejected. The transcript ends during continued amendment debate on the bill, before final passage is recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• or Senate district.
• 5 and Congressional District 6.
• Congressional District 5 and Congressional District 6.
• into that district.
• and House districts?

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• in our schools and districts.
• Cooperative purchasing: because we're large, we have 37 districts, we're 36 districts, we're able to
• and focusing on district need.
• But Nefeck is able to do that on our behalf and negotiate as 16 districts or 15 districts, and then they
• of that district.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Pre-K - 12 Education

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met with a quorum and first heard a Department of Education program review on three district support programs: assistance to low-performing schools, the Florida Partnership program, and regional literacy teams (RAISE). Dr. Paul Burns described how the Bureau of School Improvement supports schools with D/F grades through regional teams, classroom observations, professional learning, and targeted funding, noting that 104 of 168 low-performing schools improved after 2022-23 and that the share of failing schools fell from 6% to 4%. He also outlined the Florida Partnership’s $4 million annual appropriation for advanced-course teacher training and student access, and the RAISE literacy program’s $5 million funding, universal/targeted/intensive supports, and progress monitoring results. Senators asked about rural participation, post-COVID reading data, parent support, and how long schools remain under monitoring after improving; Burns said rural districts can participate statewide, parents can access school and department support, and schools continue to receive monitoring after exiting low-performing status to prevent recidivism. The committee then received a presentation on the school district education foundation matching grants program from Suzanne Pridgen, who explained that the Consortium of the Florida Education Foundations administers the grants, which require private matching funds and support tutoring, literacy, STEM, career education, professional learning, books, and supplies. She said the program leverages about $1.44 in private support for every state dollar. The committee then moved to the regional education consortia, where representatives from PAEC, NEFEC, and Heartland, along with several rural superintendents, described the consortia as member-led organizations that provide economies of scale, professional learning, HR, risk management, purchasing, legal and operational support, crisis assistance, and leadership development for small and fiscally constrained districts. Superintendents from Lafayette, Holmes, Calhoun, Union, DeSoto, and Hendry counties testified that the consortia are essential because rural districts often have very small staffs, multiple-duty administrators, and limited in-house expertise. They cited support with insurance and hurricane recovery, training for new finance and HR staff, instructional coaching, CTE and leadership programs, and help with turnaround schools. Members emphasized that these districts can be high-performing despite limited resources, and several senators praised the consortia’s value. Senator Gaetz asked about additional back-office collaboration, possible regulatory relief, and FEFP issues tied to scholarship-related enrollment swings; rural superintendents responded that more local control would help. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, which was adopted without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's broken down into district and non-district production.
• District.
• district.
• This district was... This district was created in 2001.
• district, yes.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Summary: The committee held a hearing on high-capacity groundwater wells proposed in Anderson, Henderson, and Houston counties, with members framing the issue as one of local water supply, fairness, and the need to modernize groundwater law while protecting private property rights. Opening remarks focused on the scale of the proposed Redtown Ranch and Pine Bliss projects, the potential export of tens of thousands of acre-feet of groundwater annually, and concerns that the applications lacked sufficient technical detail and could harm nearby landowners, cities, agriculture, and manufacturing. Members also noted the broader context of the recent flooding tragedy in central Texas and the Legislature’s intent to address water-related loss of life in the upcoming special session. Witnesses from the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts and the Texas Water Development Board explained the current groundwater management framework. They described groundwater conservation districts as the state’s preferred management method, the role of groundwater management areas and desired future conditions, and how the Water Development Board uses those conditions to calculate modeled available groundwater. They emphasized that districts rely on local data, monitoring wells, and planning processes, but that information is often more limited in areas without a district, where the rule of capture applies. Members pressed witnesses on recharge rates, export permits, subsidence, the effect of pumping on nearby wells, the age and real-time availability of model data, and whether the proposed project would exceed modeled available groundwater in some counties. TCEQ explained its limited oversight role over groundwater conservation districts, including inquiries, compliance actions, and, in extreme cases, dissolution authority. Water Development Board staff also outlined funding programs, saying the New Water Supply for Texas Fund is limited to projects such as brackish desalination, reuse, ASR, and other new-supply projects, and does not fund fresh groundwater exports alone. They said the project at issue had not applied for board funding. A water lawyer then testified on the rule of capture, ownership in place, and district regulation, arguing that districts must use permitting and other tools to manage production within modeled available groundwater and that the Legislature could consider additional authority over groundwater exports under current law.

Transcript Highlights:

• So district supports, we think about instructions. So important to our rural districts.
• We were in a district last year.
• The district in years.
• My district is that her school.
• So one district may decide to go Apple computers. Our district decided Chromebooks.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm sure you're feeling it in your communities, in your districts, and reading about the dozens of districts
• small rural districts.
• small rural districts.
• “On these school districts as well.
• just like all districts.

Summary: The subcommittee opened with remarks on the state budget and K-12 education, noting the large increase in the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee, the use of deferrals and reserves in the prior budget, and the challenge of balancing education funding against other state priorities. Superintendent Tony Thurmond described California education as improving overall, citing gains in test scores, graduation, and college readiness, but said major gaps remain for low-income students, students of color, agricultural communities, English learners, foster youth, and students with disabilities. He praised recent investments in universal meals, transitional kindergarten, community schools, arts, broadband, and special education, while warning that declining enrollment, chronic absenteeism, and the proposed $5.6 billion Prop. 98 settle-up create uncertainty for districts. He also urged a long-term literacy plan, expanded tutoring, universal kindergarten, and continued protections for students and families affected by immigration enforcement, including ICE-related fear and attendance loss. The committee then heard a detailed presentation on Proposition 98 from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Finance explained that the Governor’s budget projects the minimum guarantee will rise by about $21.7 billion over three years, with a $5.6 billion settle-up obligation in 2025-26 intended to avoid overappropriation if revenues weaken. Finance also described revised reserve deposits and withdrawals, ending with about $4.1 billion in the Public School System Stabilization Account by 2026-27. The LAO said recent revenue collections were stronger than expected in the current year but warned that the outlook for 2026-27 is weaker and that stock-market-driven revenues remain volatile. The LAO supported maintaining reserves and one-time spending buffers, but recommended fully funding the guarantee and using other budget solutions rather than shifting the settle-up into future deficits. Members asked about the settle-up process, certification timeline, the effect of attendance declines tied to immigration enforcement, and wildfire-related impacts, including Pasadena Unified’s $4 million special appropriation. On LCFF and necessary small schools, Finance proposed a 2.41% COLA and about $2.2 billion in additional LCFF funding for districts and charters in 2026-27, plus a $30.7 million ongoing increase to raise the necessary small schools allowance by 20%. The LAO supported funding the COLA but said the small-school increase was not tied to a specific cost study and could be redesigned to better target small districts, noting that only a fraction of very small districts would benefit. Questions focused on how small schools access supplemental and concentration grants and how attendance recovery programs are being implemented. The Department of Education said only 130 LEAs had reported attendance recovery so far, likely because it is a new program with compliance requirements, though interest appears to be growing. FICMAT then reviewed the fiscal health of local districts, reporting an uptick in qualified and negative certifications, though still far below Great Recession levels. It said declining enrollment, rising special education costs, and higher labor and insurance costs are the biggest fiscal pressures, and that some districts are using fiscal stabilization plans and staff reductions ahead of second interim reports. FICMAT also discussed wildfire impacts on Pasadena Unified and Los Angeles Unified, explaining that Pasadena’s $4 million state appropriation was based on an early post-fire assessment and that the district is being monitored with the county office of education. Members raised concerns about Pasadena’s leadership, special education staffing shortages, AB 218 sexual abuse litigation costs, insurance premium increases, and the need for stronger prevention and training measures. FICMAT said SB 848 and related policies address some of those concerns by strengthening standards, training, and reporting requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're talking about district to district. What about inside the district?
• What about inside district to district. What about inside the<00:30:44.559><c> district?
• </c> the district? the district?
• This is dealing with district to district. Okay.
• . district. district.

Committee: Joint Education

Transcript Highlights:

• the district is to draw a district that has lines that Draw a district that has lines that would promote
• 5 and Congressional District 6.
• Congressional District 5 and Congressional District 6.
• into that district.
• and House districts?

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix. After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• or Senate district.
• The construction of that district.
• 5 and Congressional District 6.
• Congressional District 5 and Congressional District 6.
• and House districts?

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> point of this is to say all districts point of this is to say all districts that<04:00:29.560><c
• </c><04:05:18.040><c> to</c><04:05:18.279><c> District</c> you saying is District to District you saying
• is District to District communication<04:05:19.199><c> would</c><04:05:19.439><c> probably</c><04:05
• </c><05:49:35.000><c> another</c><05:49:35.400><c> in</c> district from one District to another in district
• to send, or districts whose students are coming to his district, as open enrollment students.

Summary: The committee first took up HB 662, which would require discussion of abortion procedures and the viewing of certain videos in public school health education. Members argued the bill went too far by naming specific videos and involving the Attorney General in enforcement, and they said curriculum decisions should be left to educators. The committee voted ITL on HB 662 by a unanimous 18-0. The committee then considered HCR 6, a resolution calling for the removal of the superintendent of District 67. Members said the resolution targeted an individual and that the underlying dispute was already in court, so the matter should be left to the legal process. The motion to ITL passed 18-0. Next, HR 9, urging the Department of Education to emphasize STEM education, received broad support as a nonpartisan statement of priorities, and it also passed 18-0. HB 440, concerning educator licensing and shortages in Career and Technical Education, was amended to clarify that the bill applies to initial licensure only. After discussion about whether the amendment was necessary, the committee adopted Amendment 0188 unanimously and then voted OTPA on the bill as amended, 18-0. HB 222, which repealed the requirement for an MOU between charter schools and districts on services for students with disabilities, drew testimony that districts already provide substantial oversight through IEP processes and that the MOU requirement was burdensome and largely unenforced; the committee voted OTP 18-0. The committee then took up HB 719, which would repeal the right of first refusal for charter schools to purchase or lease unused district facilities. Supporters said the existing law had not generated complaints and could impede charter expansion, while opponents said the issue had not proven to be a problem and local control should be preserved. The committee voted ITL 17-1, with one member opposed and no minority report. The chair then postponed HB 184, a study committee bill on school start times, because it was scheduled for the next day, and the committee moved into a work session on bullying-related bills, discussing HB 108, HB 384, and HB 673 without taking final action in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• and a district that's really new to district elections from at-large to district elections.
• I can tell you in my district there are many districts that do not. They don't have the ability to.
• I know that you are doing this as an effective voice for your district and your district.
• What is the definition of rural districts? Districts, which we have a good definition around.
• other school district.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• c><00:34:44.240><c> an</c><00:34:44.480><c> actual</c> district by district to get an actual district
• A lot of districts do the district.
• or all districts will be districts or all districts will be conservative<01:17:26.800><c> when</c><01
• by district or see if um deer district by district or see if um deer has<01:38:24.800><c> done</c><01
• /c><01:47:58.080><c> responsible</c> district and the district is responsible district and the district

Summary: The commission met to continue its study of the cost of special education, with the chair emphasizing that the group needs to narrow its focus over the coming year toward specific cost drivers, including the IEP process, Medicaid, charter schools, and EFAs. Members reviewed a draft first report due November 1 and agreed it would be a brief synopsis of prior meetings, with minutes attached. The September 30, 2025 minutes were amended to correct the number of federally funded department staff from 234 to 23, and to revise language about Senator Sullivan’s comments so they reflected concerns about IEP advocates and fees charged to families rather than support for the concept. The amended minutes were then approved unanimously, with abstentions noted for members who were absent. The main presentation focused on how special education costs are handled for students attending charter schools. The DOE representative said there are 804 students with disabilities in charter schools across 88 of the state’s 176 districts, and that the district of residence remains responsible for all services and costs. She explained that students must meet IDEA criteria through district evaluation and parent consent, and that services are determined through individual IEP meetings rather than by a blanket charter-school decision. Members asked how those costs are tracked, whether any students are merely “monitored,” and whether districts separately identify charter-school special education expenses; the answer was that most districts fold those costs into their overall special education budget, though some may break them out as a line item. The discussion then turned to transportation and mileage costs for staff providing services at charter schools. Testimony indicated that districts may use their own staff, contract staff, or contract with a charter school for certified services, and that travel costs are often either built into contracts or absorbed as part of staff time rather than separately reimbursed. Members questioned whether mileage is reimbursed when staff travel to distant charter schools and whether those costs can be isolated in district budgets; the response was that practices vary by district and are not usually broken out by special education function. Several members argued this makes it difficult to determine the true cost of delivering special education, especially given New Hampshire’s model in which the district of residence pays regardless of where the charter school is located. The chair noted the complexity of the system and compared it to the state’s separate tuition and transportation approach for career and technical education centers.

Transcript Highlights:

• District Committee.
• Well, I'll use District 32 and District 35 as examples.
• They have taken Senate District 9 and Congressional District 9, which were African-American districts
• district, and this now affects District 13.
• district in the country.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will refer to Topok Elementary School District as the district throughout my presentation.
• district accountable to making improvements... ...at your December 2025 meeting, holding the district
• We can't get districts out of noncompliance if the districts are not doing the work themselves to get
• The district is a rural district, and it requires a lot of oversight and managing multiple roles, which
• School District performance audits assess districts operational efficiency and effect A.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Audit Committee

Summary: The committee first heard an update on Topok Elementary School District’s long-running noncompliance with Arizona’s Uniform System of Financial Records. The Auditor General’s office explained the USFR noncompliance process and reported that Topok had made substantial progress, correcting many deficiencies in areas such as open meeting law, procurement, payroll, attendance reporting, property control, and information technology. The district’s superintendent and staff described the corrective actions they had taken, the use of outside consultants, and their plan to maintain compliance through stronger leadership, training, and consistent procedures. Members praised the district’s progress and asked about the remaining deficiencies and the status of the 3% state-aid withholding, which the Auditor General said would be addressed by the State Board of Education. The committee then considered a request for a fourth school safety special audit, tied to concerns raised by Representative Martinez about Phoenix Union High School District and school violence response practices. The Auditor General said the proposed audit would be a new topic focused on policies and procedures for responding to credible threats of violence and allegations of staff misconduct affecting student safety, and could include Phoenix Union in the sample. Representative Martinez described a fatal 2024 shooting, weapons incidents, and concerns about district oversight. The committee approved the motion 10-0. Next, staff presented the fiscal years 2027-2028 school district performance audit schedule, describing 26 randomly selected school districts and career and technical education districts, plus 84 planned follow-ups. The Auditor General said the schedule is intended to shorten the average time between audits and that the school audits division is now fully staffed. Members asked about county coverage and the inclusion of ESA accountability, but the schedule was ultimately presented for review rather than approval. The committee also heard a detailed federal compliance audit presentation on the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administered by DES. The Auditor General reported repeated findings involving missing provider documentation, questioned costs, and FFATA reporting errors, including a 2024 sample that led to questioning $2.88 million in costs. The office recommended stronger documentation, record retention, reporting procedures, and staff training; DES concurred and said it would correct the findings in 2026. Members discussed the limits of the single-audit scope, the possibility of a broader special audit, and the federal government’s recent actions on CCDF oversight in other states. Finally, the committee considered and discussed a special audit request for CCDF that would broaden review to provider oversight, licensing, site visits, and billing accuracy across multiple state agencies, with estimated costs of $547,000 to $625,000 and a projected report date of July 31, 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• When districts do not use SB 9, which is only about a... Eight or nine districts in New Mexico.
• And so if a district, Mr.
• Slide six identifies the New Mexico school districts.
• In those five school districts, we have two of those New Mexico school districts that built what we call
• At New Mexico school districts hosted by New Mexico school districts with the goal of updating the adequacy

Committee: House Public School Capital Outlay Oversight Task Force