Transcript Highlights:

• uh thank you very much for your time uh thank you very much for your time today<00:17:26.319>
• <00:21:23.520> manner access to fertilizer in a timely manner access to fertilizer in a timely
• businesses um and that in tough times businesses um and that in tough times that<00:30:28.440>
• <01:07:26.359> issue I would give guess that a timing issue I would give guess that a timing
• give this more time give this more time um<01:21:09.880> and<01:21:10.600> with<01

Bills: HF1621, HF1701, HF1796, HF1676, HF40, HF1428, HF1540

Keywords: HF1621, CelluComp, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, appropriation, grant, commercialization, fiber-based barrier packaging, packaging materials, PFAS, perfluoroalkyl substances, polyfluoroalkyl substances, plastic reduction, sustainable packaging, environmental health, materials innovation, bio-based packaging, food packaging, agriculture finance, one-time grant, state subsidy

Transcript Highlights:

• She shared her concern about the proposed budget cuts to nonpublic pupil aid, saying the cuts will have
• aid in 1975 so that every school pupil in the state would share equitably in education benefits.
• pupil in the state will<01:31:22.800> share<01:31:23.119> equitably<01:31:23.560> an
• support services so that every school pupil in the state will share equitably in educational benefits
• support services so that every school pupil in the state will share equitably in educational benefits

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Minnesota Statute 123B.40 states, quote, so that every school pupil in the state shall share equitably
• Minnesota Statute 123B.40 states, quote, so that every school pupil in the state shall share equitably
• At this time, non-public pupils receive the supports needed to help our students with academic success
• > the time non-public pupils receive the time non-public pupils receive the supports<00:26:12.520
• of them were full-time 41 were part-time<01:05:18.760> at part-time at part-time at $261<01:05

Bills: HF984, HF921, HF922

Keywords: education funding, nonpublic schools, counseling services, guidance services, transportation for students, HF921, tax increment financing, TIF, excess tax increment, school district aid, levy adjustment, property tax levy, education finance, Minnesota education aid, decertification, local government finance, school funding formula, state aid reduction, referendum equalization aid, debt service equalization

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:20.720> um<00:12:21.240> if our meet on time um if our meet on time um if um
• over that time period.
• revenue have changed over that time revenue have changed over that time period<00:24:24.159> if
• The biggest share is the individual income tax share at 37% of the state budget for the general fund
• time that I've been here uh one-time time that I've been here uh one-time funding<00:48:45.200><

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Education Finance Committee met on January 21, 2025, for its first hearing of the session and began with organizational business. Members and staff introduced themselves, described their districts and backgrounds, and the chair reviewed committee procedures, including how to request bill hearings, amendment deadlines, and handout deadlines. The committee also heard introductions from nonpartisan and partisan staff, including House Research and House Fiscal Analysis personnel who will support the committee’s work this session. The main substantive item was an overview presentation on the state budget and education finance process. Staff explained how Minnesota’s general fund is forecast twice a year, how the committee should read the budget documents and aid/levy tracking sheets, and how the current biennium compares with the upcoming budget window. They described the November forecast, noted that the committee will later receive the February forecast, and outlined the committee’s role in reviewing K-12 state aid spending, school district revenue, and property tax impacts. Staff walked through the aid appropriation summary spreadsheet and explained its columns, including end-of-session spending, fiscal year 2024-25 actuals and estimates, and the 2026-27 and 2028-29 planning horizons. They emphasized that many education programs are forecast-driven and can change with enrollment and other data. The presentation also summarized the state’s overall revenue mix and spending priorities, noting that K-12 education is the largest general fund category and that state aid makes up the majority of school revenue. No bills were heard and no votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• We slowed that growth a bit to $40 per pupil in 2026 and 2027, and $42 per pupil in 2028-2029.
• It is being reduced from roughly $48-$49 per pupil to $40 per pupil in the first biennium and then $42
• per pupil in the second biennium.
• Non-public pupil transportation aid and non-public pupil education aid have given parents the resources
• I share that.

Bills: HF1388

Keywords: BARR Center, Building Assets, Reducing Risks, education finance, school funding, grant appropriation, evidence-based program, student achievement, social and emotional learning, school climate, teacher effectiveness, high school graduation, students in poverty, students of color, BIPOC, equity in education, Minnesota Department of Education, urban schools, suburban schools, rural schools, school coaching

Transcript Highlights:

• Cost per pupil was likely referenced multiple times, so it's part of the conversation, but you'd have
• Cost per pupil was likely referenced multiple times, so it's part of the conversation, but you'd have
• Cost per pupil was likely referenced multiple times, so it's part of the conversation, but you'd have
• Cost per pupil was likely referenced multiple times, so it's part of the conversation, but you'd have
• Cost per pupil was likely referenced multiple times, so it's part of the conversation, but you'd have

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on school funding formulas, adequacy aid, and special education aid, with the chair outlining a schedule for the next several Tuesdays and noting that the committee would likely need multiple executive sessions to narrow down the bills. Members discussed the FY 26 formula, including base cost, differentiated aid, extraordinary needs grants, hold harmless provisions, and the roughly $28 million in excess statewide education property tax (SWP) funds that are not currently returned to the state under the existing formula. The first bill discussed was HB 137, which would allow excess SWP funds to remain with the local municipality for school and municipal purposes. Representative Spilsbury argued the issue is fundamental and suggested the state should require excess funds to be remitted back to the state, while Representative Damon said the bill appears to codify current practice and may be unnecessary, especially given possible court action. The discussion then shifted to a related bill from Representative Fellas that would redefine SWP as local money rather than state money and keep the current adequacy aid numbers revenue-neutral for now. Representative Fellas explained that SWP was created in 1999 after the Claremont lawsuit as part of the state’s effort to show increased school aid, but that it effectively labeled part of the local property tax as state money without changing property tax bills. She argued the state should not be tapping local property tax revenue and said her bill would preserve the current distribution while removing the SWP tax label, with future work possible on a different measure of local capacity such as income, home values, or poverty rate. Members also referenced prior discussions of fiscal capacity aid, relief aid, and other formula changes as part of the broader effort to restructure school funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• , talks about the average cost per pupil, talks about the average cost per pupil, which<00:13:09.920
• Um, everyone has an cost per pupil.
• <00:23:19.440> for that calculation of cost per pupil for that calculation of cost per pupil
• 40% of their average cost per pupil. 40% of their average cost per pupil.
• involved with sports or there's a time involved with sports or there's a time which<00:51:59.200

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• pupil is too high or too inefficient? pupil is too high or too inefficient?
• Every time I look at the cost per student as it is measured here, cost per pupil, it is significantly
• pupil. Am I correct? pupil. Am I correct?
• Manchester lowest cost per pupil. Manchester lowest cost per pupil.
• And that comes with that shared<04:48:23.520> language shared language shared language because

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• cost per pupil up. cost per pupil up.
• And we've been doing this for a long time, and we have been sharing costs.
• long time.
• And we have been sharing long time.
• In FY24, time.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• times to 10 times, and 10 times beyond 100% to the state, so backing it off from three and a half to
• times to 10 times, and 10 times beyond 100% to the state, so backing it off from three and a half to
• three times?
• three times?
• c><00:43:10.280> short<00:43:11.280> I the next time cu the time is short I the next time

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met to review a large package of bills, with the first four—HB 717, 742, 773, and 603—focused on special education aid, formerly called catastrophic aid. Chair Ladin explained that the committee needed to move a special education bill forward by March 4 and was trying to determine which bill would serve as the vehicle. He described the current formula and the difficulty of estimating the fiscal impact of lowering the threshold from 3.5 times the statewide average cost per pupil to a lower level, noting that DOE did not have reliable data on how many students would fall into the lower-cost bands. The committee also noted that several other bills in the package addressed SWEP and adequacy issues, and that HB 510 dealt with due process rather than funding. Mark Mello of the Bureau of School Finance testified that the department only has reliable data for special education expenditures above $70,000 per student, since claims are submitted for reimbursement at that point. He said the bureau was trying to estimate how many students might fall between 2.5x and 3.5x or 3x and 3.5x the average cost, but that the basic answer was they did not know and that any estimate would be difficult. He explained that moving the threshold from 3.5x to 2.5x would create a minimum additional cost of about $13.6 million based on existing claims, not counting new students who would enter the range. Members discussed whether districts already had the underlying data, whether a survey should be required, and how districts know when to begin tracking costs for reimbursement. The committee also discussed proration and the state’s share of special education aid. Mello explained that the current 80% state share is modeled in the formula, but the actual payment has been prorated because appropriations have not matched the statutory liability; he said the state liability was about $50 million, while the budget had provided $34 million, resulting in a 68% payment rate. HB 742 was described as a bill that would eliminate proration by paying the liability directly from the education trust fund with an overflow mechanism. Members also discussed possible alternatives such as changing the state share, using a lower threshold in a transition period, or requiring districts to submit data. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided; the committee was still in discussion and considering which bills to advance.

Transcript Highlights:

• So there's some time.
• Thank you for your time. Thank you.
• From time to time, we have some small ways that we feel like you heard us.
• At this time, I would entertain a motion. Would it be? At this time, I would entertain a motion.
• We don't have that time.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:19:12.240> it shared and and I think he he shared it shared and and I think he he shared
• period of time?
• with a very low share. with a very low share.
• >> Well, we've talked with the commissioner many times how we derive that average cost per pupil.
• measured by a unit of time. measured by a unit of time.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• —$18,600 per pupil—obviously that's an average number, right?
• At the release of the 20th, otherwise known as unduplicated pupils.
• And at the same time, Okay.
• We want to get to a place where we're thinking about learning time, not seat time. Thank you.
• I think we asked the question a number of times.

Summary: The committee heard presentations on the Governor’s education budget proposals for the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), Learning Recovery Block Grant, and Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), followed by testimony from State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond. On LCFF, Finance outlined the proposed 2.43% COLA, repayment of prior deferrals, and a trailer bill penalty for LEAs that fail to adopt Local Control Accountability Plans on time. The LAO said its COLA estimate was slightly lower and raised concerns that the Governor’s proposed TK staffing ratio increase may be more costly than estimated. Members also discussed whether the current COLA formula should better reflect California-specific or district staffing costs, and whether TK should be more clearly separated from the K-3 grade span adjustment to avoid larger K-3 class sizes. The chair asked staff to work with the LAO on both the TK/K-3 issue and alternative COLA calculations. For the Learning Recovery Block Grant, Finance proposed restoring the first of three delayed payments, $378.6 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund, while the LAO recommended adopting the proposal but extending the expenditure deadline by at least a year. The LAO reported that districts had spent $1.6 billion of the $6.8 billion received through 2023-24 and said most districts were only now shifting from federal COVID relief to block grant spending. Members questioned whether the large state and federal investments were improving outcomes, citing declining reading and math trends, while Finance and the State Board president pointed to some signs of improvement, especially in math, attendance, and gains for some student groups. Darling-Hammond emphasized that student needs have grown, that recovery spending has gone to devices, ventilation, staffing, tutoring, summer school, and community schools, and that targeted interventions appear to be helping some districts recover faster than others. On ELOP, Finance proposed adding $435 million to expand universal access by lowering the Tier 1 threshold from 75% to 55% unduplicated pupils, bringing ongoing funding to $4.4 billion. The LAO said the estimate was reasonable but recommended delaying implementation for a year, aligning ELOP with ASES to reduce overlap, moving toward funding based on participation rather than enrollment, and considering a fixed Tier 2 rate. Members and witnesses discussed staffing challenges, the use of funds for students with disabilities, and uncertainty in Tier 2 funding caused by unspent dollars and opt-outs. Darling-Hammond supported ELOP as part of California’s broader after-school and summer learning strategy, said most districts are now offering full-day TK and expanded learning, and urged the state to reduce fragmentation across categorical programs and build more unified systems for funding, reporting, and support.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:52.400> in<00:03:52.560> each $7,75 per pupil in each $7,75 per pupil in each
• The board can renew it one time.
• Thank you for your time, madam. do. Thank you for your time, madam.
• I know our time is limited, and I thank you for taking the time today to hear from us.
• I know it's a difficult time. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Miss Cornstrom.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The goal is to share their thoughts so that we can keep our meeting on time.
• And uh I will be here at times fully but at times maybe not so fully because I still have about six chemo
• repeat that a second time. repeat that a second time.
• During that time, I came to value deeply the bipartisan commitment many of us shared to practical problem
• During that time, I came to value deeply the bipartisan commitment many of us shared to practical problem

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from that time and they were<01:44:23.920> able<01:44:24.159> to<01:44:24.320> share
• uh so that was at were able to share uh so that was at that<01:44:26.000> time<01:44:26.480><
• They will do presentations to share best practices, share knowledge, share different ways of how they've
• practices, share knowledge, shares practices, share knowledge, shares different<01:48:15.440>
• poor pupil, this is 2011, the poor pupil poor pupil, this is 2011, the poor pupil was<02:08:13.119

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the non-public pupil education Aid and<00:09:16.079> non-public<00:09:16.600> Pupil<00
• uh to be accepted from the $380 pupil uh to be accepted from the $380 pupil Camp<00:35:15.119>
• costs again is pupil driven pupil driven costs again is pupil driven pupil driven costs are<00
• <01:22:39.840> time<01:22:40.159> the<01:22:40.320> private because of shared
• time the private because of shared time the private alternative<01:22:41.159> Aid<01:22:41.400

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• and I did the math again one more time. and I did the math again one more time.
• I get that all the time. >> Close enough. I get that all the time.
• The total staff-to-pupil ratio and teacher-to-pupil ratios kind of stabilized.
• a long time. So, I agree with you. So, a long time. So, I agree with you.
• increase that over time, Mr. Chairman. increase that over time, Mr. Chairman.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Education met without a quorum, so the minutes were not approved. The main presentation was from retired economics professors John Garren and Dr. Kums, who discussed their Bluegrass Institute research on teacher compensation in Kentucky since the Kentucky Education Reform Act era. They said teacher base salaries, adjusted for inflation, have declined over the last decade, while state-paid “on-behalf” benefits such as pension and health insurance contributions have risen sharply; they argued total teacher compensation has increased modestly overall, but less than per-pupil funding. They also presented broader context on staffing growth, declining average daily attendance, Kentucky’s low share of teachers among total school staff, and flat or weak NAEP and ACT performance trends, including widening white-Black score gaps on NAEP. Members questioned the methodology and interpretation of the compensation figures. Representative Bojanowski argued the on-behalf calculations may overstate teacher compensation because they include insurance and pension costs that also benefit classified employees and retirees, and he asked for clarification on the denominator used to derive the per-teacher amount. Representative Truit said the presentation could be misleading if it implies teachers earn $94,000 in salary, and he objected to framing pension stabilization payments as teacher pay. The presenters responded that they were using total compensation, not salary alone, said they had divided total personnel-related on-behalf payments by the relevant staff count, and promised to review and send a technical explanation. Representative Truit and Chairman Typton both emphasized that compensation should be viewed as salary plus benefits, not salary alone, and noted that pension contributions are part of the cost of employing teachers. The presenters said their intent was to show the full compensation package and its relevance to labor supply and teacher shortages, not to claim that individual teachers earn the total compensation figure as salary. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond the decision to revisit the minutes at a later meeting due to the lack of quorum.

Transcript Highlights:

• . pupil. pupil.
• and um uh times times two courses 6,000 and um uh times times two courses 6,000 times<01:26:22.159>
• So they take 4.5 times the board’s average per-pupil educational cost, similar to what we have, and they
• So they take 4.5 times the board’s average per-pupil educational cost, similar to what we have, and they
• So they take 4.5 times the board’s average per-pupil educational cost, similar to what we have, and they

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 209, which would require schools seeking building aid for construction or reconstruction projects to use an owner’s project manager. The chair explained an amendment that would remove the bill’s requirement that the manager be engaged before application and instead revert to current law, while updating the project threshold from the older $1 million figure to a more current amount and clarifying that the manager’s role is to protect the project owner’s interests. Members asked about the cost of hiring a project manager over several years before a project is funded, the 1.5% fee in rule, and whether the rules already define the manager’s duties. The chair said the amendment addressed those concerns by leaving the timing to current law and relying on existing administrative rules for qualifications and responsibilities. The committee then voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 209 OTPA, placing it on the consent calendar. The committee then moved to SB 99, which concerns allowing students enrolled in career and technical education programs at receiving comprehensive high schools to take additional academic courses there. The chair said the bill was intended to make it easier for students to access CTE without being blocked by scheduling conflicts in their sending schools, and to clarify how agreements between sending and receiving districts would work. He described concerns about the bill’s cost formula, transportation, part-time versus full-time status, and whether the proposal could unintentionally create open-enrollment or athletic-transfer issues. He said the amendment would mirror existing treatment for homeschool and charter school students, use a familiar funding model, and limit participation to students already enrolled in one or more CTE classes at the receiving school. The chair also emphasized that comprehensive high schools already have a statutory definition and that the bill would help more students participate in CTE, which he said currently reaches only a relatively small share of students statewide. He noted that transportation would be covered only when a CTE bus is available, otherwise students would be responsible for arranging travel as under current practice. After brief discussion, the committee voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 99 OTPA, also placing it on the consent calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you can see the total 108.8 times per-pupil payment comes up with just over 1.2 million.
• per-pupil payment at the time.
• instead of four times, or maybe two and a half times, right?
• instead of four times, or maybe two and a half times, right?
• And even the payment models, or the per-pupil payment at the time, was just over 9,000.

Keywords: 908, all