USDB committee lays out six-month plan to answer legislature on services, staffing and funding

The USDB standing committee agreed March 11 to a concentrated six-month work plan to answer questions from the Legislature about the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind’s scope of services, funding and relationship with local education agencies, and to prepare staffing recommendations and short-term fixes for the current school year.

The committee’s work responds to intent language and memoranda from the Education Appropriations Committee and the Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee and will be produced within the constraints of the state appropriation currently described in the meeting as a roughly $55,000,000 base budget, committee members and staff said.

Scott Jones, superintendent, told the committee that “we have to work off the appropriations and the base budget, you know, which is 55,000,000, roughly,” and said the directive originates from legislation and the appropriation language the committee has in its backup materials. The committee discussed how to use the memorandum on page 57 of the Public Education Appropriation (PEA) booklet and a specific Education Appropriations Committee (EAC) motion as primary guides for its next six months of work.

Why it matters: the Legislature has requested a review of USDB governance, role in public education, scope of services, funding of students, obligations of students’ resident local education agencies (LEAs) and capital facilities. The committee must produce a presentation by November and show short- and longer-term options for meeting students’ legal entitlements under IDEA and state rules.

Most urgent priorities: staff and committee members repeatedly said scope of services, funding and the LEA–USDB relationship require immediate attention. Superintendent Patton (title: Superintendent) and other USDB leaders described situations where Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams are weighing placements while USDB faces limits in classroom space and certified personnel. Committee members said those limits affect the ability to deliver services even when placement decisions favor USDB.

Committee direction and near-term steps: the group agreed to a special “deep dive” working meeting next week focused on scope of services, service needs, and staffing recommendations that fit within the forecasted budget. Board staff (identified in the meeting as Susan and Michelle) told members they could be ready with staffing recommendations by the next week’s meeting. The plan called for a public update at the full board meeting in April and a presentation to the Legislature by November.

Funding context and sustainability: members noted the board had previously requested a $4,000,000 bridge appropriation that was not approved. Committee members and staff described the immediate exercise as producing temporary solutions within current resources while also outlining what a sustainable, long-term funding solution would require. One member noted the original legislative request had sought ongoing funds for 38 full-time equivalents; committee discussion treated the 38-FTE figure as part of the long-term sustainment conversation.

Legal and procedural questions: Member Davis asked whether state code that says USDB “may” provide services overrides the USDB fee schedule or IEP obligations. Assistant Attorney General Beal told the committee she needed to review finance details before giving a definitive interpretation. Scott Jones explained that the fee schedule is the authority for collection of fees in limited cases, and that statutory language using “may” reflects the Legislature’s choice to define USDB’s role and governance rather than create a blanket mandate to provide all services in all circumstances.

Audit request: committee staff said Representative White had notified them he would file a request for a legislative audit to answer many of the fiscal and performance questions raised during the session, although the management committee must approve any audit request. USDB staff said they are preparing a document answering the Legislature’s questions so they can respond quickly if an audit is approved.

Votes and formal actions: the only formal recorded motion in the meeting transcript was a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and carried by voice vote. The committee otherwise recorded several planning decisions and staff commitments (meeting next week, staffing recommendations due next week, public report in April) as directions rather than formal board actions.

Concerns and constraints raised: members stressed the timing of hiring and applicant pools; several staff and board members urged acting quickly so positions can be posted before applicant pools shrink in late spring and summer. Staff flagged that some solutions the committee can propose in the short term will be temporary and that longer-term sustainment will require additional appropriations or structural changes that the Legislature must approve.

Next steps and forward look: USDB staff will prepare staffing recommendations and a scope-of-services deep-dive for the working meeting next week; the committee will use those findings in April’s public meeting and draft the November presentation for legislative review. Committee members said they would be available to help explain the program’s unique needs to legislators and to participate in additional stakeholder meetings with LEAs as needed to examine placement and service-delivery models.

Ending: Committee members closed by reaffirming the dual task: quickly produce immediate, implementable staffing and service plans for this school year while developing a transparent path toward a sustainable funding and governance model for USDB over the next six months.