Committee hears bill letting governor draw on Education Trust Fund to cover special-education shortfalls

Lawmakers on the House Education Funding Committee on April 15 heard testimony on Senate Bill 292, a measure that would let the governor issue a warrant to withdraw money from the Education Trust Fund — and, if the trust fund lacks a balance, from the general fund — to cover unanticipated shortfalls in state special-education aid.

Committee members were told last year’s special-education program came in roughly $15 million over projections and that, under current law, that gap is prorated back to school districts and ultimately local property taxpayers. "This bill seeks to make sure that never happens again. We don't raise property taxes when the state has a shortfall," Senator Lang said, introducing the measure and citing a $15 million gap in last year’s budget.

Supporters framed SB 292 as a protection for local taxpayers and a compliance tool to ensure the state meets its statutory commitment for high‑cost special-education placements. "We budgeted, we were $15,000,000 off in our budgeted amount," Senator Lang said. He and others told the committee the shortfall had two principal causes: roughly 100 additional students qualifying for the catastrophic‑aid threshold and a statutory change that extended the age of special-education eligibility to 22, which increased enrollments and cost per student.

Committee members questioned whether the bill’s language matches other proposals and whether it could unintentionally eliminate budgetary controls. Representative Uno asked how the program accounts for high per‑student costs — including paraprofessional and transportation costs, which committee members said can run into the tens of thousands of dollars per pupil. "So, specifically, no," Senator Lang replied when asked whether the legislation adjusts per‑pupil projections; he said the bill addresses the shortfall mechanism rather than the formula for estimated counts used in budgeting.

Other members noted overlapping proposals in the House. Representative Spilsbury pointed to House Bill 773, which would set an 80 percent floor for state contributions when apportionments are prorated, and asked whether SB 292 represents a different policy choice between full state coverage or a partial floor. "I think we're going to come down to a question of whether to do 100% or 80%," Spilsbury said. Senator Lang replied that the bill's intent is to avoid sudden local tax increases by using state fund balances when available to cover the gap.

Members also asked about the source and size of the Education Trust Fund balance, and whether drawing from it would be appropriate while other budget pressures exist. Representative McGuire observed that the governor and House budgets had both dipped into the state's rainy‑day or reserve funds; Senator Lang agreed that the state currently faces pressure but argued that prior surpluses could have covered last year's shortfall without shifting costs to local taxpayers.

Committee members asked whether the bill should be coupled with a broader review of special-education costs, eligibility and program audit recommendations. Senator Lang said he would be open to incorporating a study committee or performance audit language so the committee can look at eligible costs, transportation and other drivers of per‑student cost growth. The hearing closed with no formal vote; committee members indicated they would return for further questions and possible amendments.

Ending: Committee members flagged related House bills and the need for technical cleanup to align SB 292 with existing statutory language on sources of funds and appropriation mechanics. Lawmakers agreed to follow up with budget staff and the Department of Education to clarify fund balances, program drivers and how new language would interact with other pending bills on special-education proration and catastrophic aid.