Finance committee approves amendments to school land trust rule; committee debate centers on charter procedures, carryover and cell‑phone storage

The finance committee approved R277‑477 — the rule governing distribution of funds from the trust distribution account and administration of the School Land Trust program — on first reading and voted to forward the rule to the full board for final approval. The approval passed with one member recorded as opposed.

Why it matters: The amendments reorganize the School Land Trust rule, incorporate changes required by recent legislation, clarify how charter schools participate in the program, set firm dates for calculations and distributions, and add a new prohibition on using trust money to store students’ personal property such as cell phones. The committee also received the program’s annual compliance report, which staff said showed most schools are using funds appropriately but highlighted carryover and plan‑writing problems that triggered corrective actions.

The committee heard a detailed presentation from Paula Plant, School Children’s Trust director, who described the rule edits as primarily organizational and responsive to two legislative changes. “This rule looks a bit complicated and it's actually, doesn't make as many changes as it looks like because there's a lot of cross out and underline,” Plant said, then summarized two statute‑driven changes: moving the local approval role to the LEA budget/business officer and removing an exemption for charter schools that previously allowed some small schools to avoid council requirements.

Plant described additional charter‑specific edits that the working group asked for: a dedicated section in the rule on charter council election procedures; new instructions for when charter boards act as the trust council; and a clarification of the deadline charter schools asked to use to submit plans (charter schools requested May 1 instead of the district June 15 date). She also told the committee staff set a firm March 1 cutoff for the charter‑school formula calculation so schools know the distribution they will receive for the coming school year.

Deputy Superintendent Scott Jones and staff explained the vote before the committee: a motion to approve R277‑477 draft 3 on first reading and forward it to the board passed; the clerk recorded one no vote (Member Christina Boggess). The motion was made and read into the record during the meeting.

Compliance report and carryover: Kira Bennett, compliance specialist for the School Children’s Trust, presented the annual compliance monitoring review for 2023–24 and the corrective actions resulting from that work. Bennett said the program expects to distribute about $106,200,000 in the 2024–25 school year and reported that roughly 84% of schools were projected to qualify for the first disbursement in July (83% of districts and 93% of charters in the sample she cited). She told the committee that the comprehensive reviews — now done every six to eight years for LEAs rather than every 10 — found the most common issues were plan components, council seating and election procedures (charters), and rules of order and procedure. Bennett said staff found no evidence of program funds misused in the sample that would require payback.

The presentation flagged excessive carryover (more than 10% of a school’s allocation) as an ongoing concern. Bennett noted the current year was treated as a final “grace year” for carryover related to COVID disruptions; LEAs with carryover in their first or second notice year received outreach and many submitted plan amendments to reduce balances before corrective action would be required in the third year.

Cell phones and student property: The trust advisory committee recommended adding “storage of personal student property” to the list of inappropriate expenditures. Plant explained the recommended prohibition followed multiple meetings and concerns that some proposals seeking trust dollars to buy secure cell‑phone storage had been expensive — one proposal cited a per‑school system at about $10,000 — even though less costly classroom‑scale solutions exist. “They did not feel like storage of personal student property should be an appropriate expenditure from the trust,” Plant said. Committee members asked staff whether districts or other local funding sources might cover storage if a school chose to adopt it; staff replied districts and school student‑success plans provide alternate funding routes and that liability concerns were primarily local decisions.

What the committee directed: The committee approved the rule edits for first reading and accepted the compliance report. Staff described corrective actions already in place for LEAs with identified issues (deadlines and school‑specific corrective action plans) and told the committee they have increased training, updated templates and improved application and plan review processes to reduce recurrence. Deputy Superintendent Jones noted the monitoring effort is categorized as a level‑4 oversight activity and requires approximately one full‑time equivalent staff position to execute the reviews on the current cadence.

Ending note: Plant and Bennett said they will continue to work with charter stakeholders and the trust advisory committee to refine the rule text and administrative procedures before the second reading at the full board. The committee’s motion forwards R277‑477 to the board for final consideration.