Appropriations panel debates DPI budget; proposal would divert $100 million from stabilization fund to school construction and prioritize per‑pupil payments

The Appropriations — Education and Environment Division reviewed the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) budget and funding sources at a committee meeting, where one senator proposed using most carryover and trust fund money for per‑pupil payments and transferring $100,000,000 from the Foundation Aid Stabilization Fund into the school construction low‑interest revolving loan fund.

The proposal, introduced during the committee’s worksheet review, would use available carryover, the common schools trust fund allocation, and part of the Foundation Aid Stabilization Fund to shore up per‑pupil payments. The senator said that using one‑time carryover and trust amounts for the per‑pupil payment would be preferable to tapping those pots for ad hoc projects and asked staff to reallocate worksheet lines to reflect a 3 and 3 per‑pupil rate scenario (up from the current 2 and 2) that would cost an additional $38,000,000 in general fund support.

Why it matters: the Foundation Aid Stabilization Fund is designed to protect K‑12 funding during downturns; diverting a large portion to construction or recurring payments changes the fund’s balance and could exhaust amounts available for future shortfalls. Committee members and DPI staff framed the change as a prioritization decision between ongoing and one‑time spending.

DPI staff provided program and eligibility figures to help the panel weigh that tradeoff. Kristin, Department of Public Instruction representative, told the committee that 34,821 students qualify for free lunches and 9,100 qualify for reduced‑price lunches under the federal formula; about 1,783 additional students would be covered if the free‑meal eligibility threshold increases from 200% to 225% of the federal poverty level. The department is estimating "about 93 to 95 percent" of eligible students currently complete required forms and that roughly 58 percent of eligible students are direct certified through SNAP, TANF or other HHS programs, she said.

DPI staff also summarized program funding lines on the worksheet, distinguishing ongoing operating costs from one‑time grants. Staff recommended that ongoing program costs be funded from the general fund and that one‑time items be paid from one‑time sources. Specific items discussed as one‑time requests included Native American essential understandings curriculum printing, the Amira reading platform pilot, dyslexia identification training and an assistive‑technology pilot (Robokind). DPI recommended operationalizing two previously one‑time items: the Native American essential‑understandings training and dyslexia work.

On Amira, the reading platform, DPI said 100 school districts rostered students for the pilot and that use varied; DPI reported it has been monitoring login and usage rates and warned that the state would not continue funding if rostered students do not actively use the platform. DPI noted high gains in districts that used Amira consistently, particularly some Native American schools.

Program‑by‑program notes DPI provided to the committee included a $6,000,000 appropriation for college‑credit/advanced‑placement access from the previous session, with roughly $4,500,000 expected to be spent on AP exam fees this biennium; the increase from 200% to 225% free‑meal eligibility was estimated to raise that line by about $1,800,000, for a total projected need near $7.7 million in that line.

Committee directions and next steps: the senator who proposed the worksheet changes asked staff (identified in the meeting as Sheila) to move the proposed 3 and 3 per‑pupil scenario and the $100,000,000 construction transfer into the worksheet so members could see the net effect and where additional general fund support would be required. No formal vote was recorded on the proposals during the session; the committee set follow‑up work to review priorities and indicated it planned to meet again the following Monday at 10:00 a.m. to continue budget work.

The discussion repeatedly returned to a single tradeoff: whether to preserve the Foundation Aid Stabilization Fund as a formal downturn reserve (its design purpose) or to use a large portion now for construction and per‑pupil payments. Committee members asked DPI for further prioritization and for evidence on program uptake and ongoing costs before committing recurring general fund dollars.

The meeting closed with instructions to staff to revise the worksheet to reflect the senator’s suggested reallocations and to bring back a clearer set of totals showing general fund increases required under the 3 and 3 scenario and the proposed $100,000,000 transfer.