Board amends administrative rule to let USDB charge outreach fees as work group studies funding

The board voted to approve administrative rule R277-801, which governs services for students who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, visually impaired and deafblind, and amended the rule to remove language that capped when the Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB) could charge local education agencies for outreach services.

The change clears a regulatory limit that had said USDB "shall provide all funded outreach services at no cost for qualifying students within the LEA with less than 3%," and instead allows USDB to enter contracts and charge fees for LEAs that fall below that threshold. Vice Chair Wood, who moved the measure, described the amendment as “taking out that 3% so that we don't have that kind of guardrail in place as we move forward on this discussion.”

Board members said the amendment does not itself set a new payment policy. It simply permits contracts or fees while a newly formed work group studies sustainable funding models. "This rule does not dictate anything," Vice Chair Wood said. "We haven't set up any process of who's paying, what's paying, how are they paying. It's simply saying taking out that 3% so that we don't have that kind of guardrail in place as we move forward on this discussion. Any future changes will come to the board."

Members described the work group as a legislative and operational review expected to run about six months. "We have a work group that we will be forming that will get voices from the field," Wood said. The board's stated next step is to form the work group in a meeting the following Tuesday and then return to the board for approval of the group's membership and any proposed changes.

Members discussed why the amendment was needed. Board members said roughly 10 school districts in the state have more than 3% of students qualifying for these services (members named Alpine, Canyons and Davis as examples) and may already contract with USDB or provide their own outreach services. Vice Chair Wood said districts below 3% historically received outreach without an explicit contract; the amendment allows USDB to pursue contracts with those LEAs if the work group and board later adopt such an approach.

Several members raised concerns about potential costs for small LEAs and the need to preserve maintenance-of-effort funding streams. Member Kerry asked whether the change meant USDB would begin charging more students; Wood responded, "We want to charge more students. I just need to better understand the impact of that change." Member Earl asked whether removing the cap would mean USDB would serve any student without cost to the LEA; Wood clarified the change is permissive and allows contracts and fees for LEAs below the 3% threshold, not an automatic funding change.

Board members also cited district-specific examples. Wood said USDB had covered a shortfall for Tooele School District last year, noting "I think we made up $300,000 for them at the end of last year to help provide for these services because they were getting it for free and then they lost those students." Members said those kinds of fluctuations in enrollment and funding were part of why the board needs a study and clearer, transparent funding models.

The board also approved a narrowly noticed technical amendment to update year references in the rule; the board struck "2017, 2018" from a line in the rule and replaced them with "2024, 2025." The amendment was described as housekeeping tied to current contract timelines and to avoid having the board repeatedly bring the same change back while current contracts are finalized.

Deputy Superintendent Newey presented the proposal and answered procedural questions. Superintendent Coleman was present and signaled support for the discussions and proposals, and board members said USDB administrators have been involved in the work. Members said the work group will consult the Legislative Fiscal Analyst and USDB staff as they examine options such as a sliding scale by student count or FTE, or other contract models.

The motion to approve R277-801, as amended, passed unanimously with Member Green recorded as stepping out during the vote. Vice Chair Wood emphasized that any specific charging structure or new contracts would return to the board following the study, and that the amendment only allows the option of contracts or fees going forward.

Board members said they will try to ensure transparency and include local LEA voices in the work group so districts understand potential costs and the rationale for charging models. "We want to be transparent and have their voices at the table," Wood said. The board expects the work group to return recommendations and any draft rule changes to the full board after the study period.