Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Rulemaking Fiscal Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill Would Require State Board to Report Unfunded Financial Impact of Rules; Board Chair Says Process Already Seeks Stakeholder Input
Summary
Representative Rick Ladd proposed HB 718 to require the State Board of Education to report the unfunded financial impact on school districts when board rules exceed federal or state minimums. The Board chair said rulemaking currently seeks stakeholder input but said the department lacks in‑house capacity to produce quantified fiscal analyses for
Representative Rick Ladd presented HB 718, a bill that would require the State Board of Education to report the unfunded financial impact to school districts of any board rules that exceed state or federal minimum standards.
Ladd said the state law currently requires the board to report the existence of rules that exceed minimum standards and to explain the rationale for exceeding standards, but the bill would add a requirement to report the estimated unfunded cost to local districts. “What I've heard from a number of folks in the field ... when we adopt these rules, what is the corresponding cost to implement this rule?” Ladd told the committee.
Drew Klein, chairman of the State Board of Education, testified that the board already seeks stakeholder input and questions proposed mandates during rulemaking. “We try to stay within that. What we don't do is the financial impact analysis. We're just not equipped to do that,” Klein said, noting the board lacks dedicated staff economists or analysts to produce rigorous cost estimates.
Klein described the board’s current rulemaking process — stakeholder engagement, public hearings and a 10‑year renewal conveyor for rules — and said that much of the board’s work is grounded in federal statutes and regulations, especially in special education where rules align to CFR requirements.
Committee members and witnesses discussed the scope and definition of “unfunded financial impact.” Representative Maguire suggested replacing “unfunded” with “additional financial impact” to avoid shifting a budgetary or legislative judgment onto the board. Representative Ladd and other members acknowledged several practical difficulties: the variability of impact across districts, the department’s resource needs to compute district‑level estimates, and the administrative cost of producing analyses.
Board and department witnesses said the reporting would be useful if narrowly tailored — for example, asking staff to indicate whether a rule creates costs for districts and to identify the categories (staffing, transportation, special education services) rather than produce a single statewide dollar estimate. Representatives urged further work to clarify the bill’s charges and consider whether a fiscal‑note style summary might be more appropriate.
No committee action was taken; sponsors and department staff agreed to work on narrowing language and developing a feasible approach for reporting financial impacts.
