P - Present
E - Excused
A - Absent
Roll Call
P Bartling
P Dennert
P Earley, Vice-Chair
P Gant
P Glenski
P Greenfield
P Hanson (Gary)
P Haverly
P Hunhoff
P Klaudt, Vice-Chair
P Napoli
P Peters
P Putnam, Chair
P Rausch
P Smidt
P Sutton (Duane)
P Tidemann
P Apa, Chair
OTHERS PRESENT: See Original Minutes
The meeting was called to order by Representative J. E. “Jim” Putnam, Chairman
Larry Gabriel, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, briefed the Joint Committee on the duties of
his office and in response to questions from the Joint Committee, Secretary Gabriel distributed a
briefing document (Document 1). Secretary Gabriel told the Joint Committee he remembers former
Secretaries of Agriculture saying there is no position in state government where people have higher
expectations and the job has so little responsibility or requirements to do in law. That's basically
in the area of developing markets and trying to look at merchandising products versus commodities.
Secretary Gabriel has gone ahead and tried to develop markets because there is a section in law that
says that is his job. He feels that is why they should be doing value added agriculture and the SD
Certified Beef Program. Secretary Gabriel said discussions are already underway in Congress on the
farm bill and he expects subsidies to decrease with less money going to states like South Dakota.
A new farm bill will be introduced in 2007. This new farm policy will be different with less money
available for subsidies and payments will likely be stewardship driven. Secretary Gabriel said we
need to look at agriculture as how we can change it to profit South Dakota farmers and ranchers.
In response to the Joint Committees questions on what is mandated and what is discretionary,
Secretary Gabriel said in the laws it appears there is a lot that is discretionary. However, there are
also Federal laws and rules that say if your production is going to interstate or international
commerce you must have those same inspections and certificates. The Department of Agriculture
calls mandated by necessity. That means we don't have to do it but our producers suffer. Secretary
Gabriel said when you read through the mandates and see the word “may” don't assume there is no
cost if the Department doesn't do them, the cost will be borne by our producers in the state of South
Dakota.
Senator Earley asked Secretary Gabriel to give the Joint Committee a picture of what a family farm
or ranch would look like in 15 years and how will it would be funded through federal programs
compared to where we are today. Secretary Gabriel responded that there will likely be several
scenarios. One could be a farm 30,000-50,000 acres in size (or larger). Farmers will farm by
latitude with masses of land in various locations, maybe Texas or Nebraska. Farmers will plant
timely by growing season, minimal till, harvest crops like custom harvesters. It may be big farms,
small rural communities, fewer people. Or, there will be smaller operations where they sell livestock
or more advanced where farmers raise crops that may be genetically modified and raised for a
specific health benefit. These will be small farms, high level of management, typically managed by
college graduates from a land grant university where crops are protected from co-mingling with
commodity crops. These crops will be very expensive.
Finance Officer Ken Anderson explained the budget requests for the various department programs.
Agronomy: A decrease of $25,000 from other funds in Supplies and Materials and an increase of
$80,600 in Capital Outlay. This increase is to replace laboratory equipment at SDSU's Olsen
Biochemistry Laboratory, global positioning system units and computers for a total increase of
$55,600.
Pesticides: An increase of $7,249 for salary and operation inflation at the Olsen Biochemistry
Laboratory, increased shipping costs and registration costs with the EPA. A decrease of $16,000
from other funds since the weather station network funded in FY 2005 will be completed in FY
2006. The Governor has requested an increase of $150,000 from the General Fund for the Rodent
Control Program for treatment of prairie dog infestation. An increase of $40,800 from other funds
due to the increased demand for prairie dog bait and the amount of raw materials and energy to
manufacture the product. An increase of $49,820 from other funds to replace a forklift, lab
equipment global positioning system units, cameras and computers. A decrease of $2,575 in
computer hardware for a total increase of $229,294.
Secretary Gabriel told the Joint Committee the Departments of Agriculture and Game, Fish & Parks
have been criticized for not having the money available to control prairie dogs. The Prairie Dog Plan
will be submitted to the Legislature for their approval. This plan is a good neighbor policy and the
money will allow the Department of Agriculture to go into areas and control the migration of prairie
dogs for the first mile from boundaries.
Representative Klaudt asked where the $150,000 figure came from. Secretary Gabriel said it was
based on the amount of funds used last year and that the $150,000 should get them along ways.
Representative Klaudt asked what they had paid the landowners and Secretary Gabriel answered they
had hired commercial applicators that were managed by the Department of Game, Fish & Parks.
Senator Napoli asked if the Legislators would get to look at the plan before they were asked to
support it. He said that in the past the plan has not met with everyone's approval and he asked if the
plan was set in stone or if the department was open to suggestions. Secretary Gabriel said when the
bill passed in 2001 it was an straight up or down vote with no ability to amend the plan. It may not
go as far as some want. The federal government was reluctant to go along with the plan but since
have changed their mind. Recommendations were and will be considered. Secretary Gabriel said
the plan is available now and he assumes it will come as a Joint or Concurrent Resolution. He
reminded the Joint Committee that everyone was invited to a meeting to discuss the plan; however,
he will see that Senator Napoli gets a copy of the plan.
Representative Haverly asked if the $150,000 will go to the Department of Agriculture or the
Department of Game, Fish & Parks and what will the department do with the money. Secretary
Gabriel said the money will go to the Department of Agriculture. They will send out an RFP to hire
commercial applicators to do the work. The projects will be prioritized if it happens there are more
projects than funds available.
Representative Peters asked if the $125,000 that was spent included labor and materials and
Secretary Gabriel said yes. Representative Peters then asked if the $150,000 for Rodent Control and
the $40,000 for prairie dog bait were two different things. Secretary Gabriel said yes. He explained
the $40,000 is for the bait and the amount of raw materials needed to manufacture the product.
Representative Klaudt asked why they private citizen doesn't still pick up the poison oats from the
local cooperative extension agencies and apply it themselves. Secretary Gabriel advised that they
still do; however, the landowners near federal or tribal lands are being inundated by migrating prairie
dogs. These landowners are in a unique situation because of their neighbors.
Representative Hunhoff asked if there were plans in place for replacing equipment at the labs. Ken
Anderson, Department of Agriculture Finance Officer said there were and that the department works
with SDSU to plan these replacements. Secretary Gabriel commented that the department can not
afford every item the laboratory's want but at the same time they can not afford to go out of state for
all their testing either. The department analyzes which is most cost effective. Senator Earley asked
for copies of the agreements with SDSU to see who provides what services. Secretary Gabriel said
he would provide the agreements.
Dairy/Egg/Plant Protection: In Personal Services the department is requesting an increase of $20,481
and a transfer of 1.0 FTE to the Resource Conservation & Forestry Division. However, this FTE
may appear again in the department budget. An increase of $27,760 in Travel and an increase of
$20,379 in Contractual Services for a total of $68,620.
Ray Sowers, Division Director explained the Resource Conservation and Forestry budget request.
The budget has a total $173,298 budget decrease, involving a $25,280 increase in General Funds,
$30,408 increase from federal funds and a reduction of $228,986 in other funds. There is an increase
of $4,700 for inflation in Central Services and Fleet and Travel. The agency is requesting one new
FTE for the Forest Health Program and this FTE is being moved from Ag Services. This FTE will
be a total expansion, including operating expenses, of $51,000 which is a 50/50 general/federal cost
share. Last Session the Joint Appropriations Committee approved an amendment which replaced
other funds in our Conservation Program with General Funds. These are the surplus other funds that
are excess to our needs.
Representative Dennert asked about the money removed from the Conservation Program. Since the
Department of Agriculture was taking out the money for conservation grants, would the Legislature
replace this money again later for conservation programs. Mr. Sowers responded that by removing
it from their budget it would be made available to grants from a different budget.
Representative Glenski asked about the increases in Fleet and Travel and for BIT. Mr. Sowers
responded that the $4,300 increase for Fleet and Travel, was for pickups where the rate when from
38 cents/mile to 41 cents/mile. BIT charges did not increase; however, central services charges
increased $500 for doing vouchers.
Secretary Gabriel commented on the work done in the Division of Resource Conservation and
Forestry and in particular Greg Josten for his work on the joint cooperating agency status.
Joe Lowe, Division Director of the South Dakota Division of Wildland Fire Suppression. They
protect the Black Hills Forest Fire Protection District comprised of approximately 750,000 acres.
They have engines, hand crews, contract air tankers, management team and can provide logistical
support for fires. Responsibilities include fuel mitigation, prescribed burning and wildland fire
training. Since 2000 they have fought 354 fires over 54,336 acres on state land in the Black Hills.
This does not include assistance for hire on federal land in the Black Hills.
In fuel mitigation there are two hand crews. One the Black Hats and the new crew approved by the Interim Committee, the Bear Mountain handcrew, stationed in Custer State Park.
Secretary Gabriel told the Joint Committee the US Forest Service now recognizes the state's ability
to fight fires and are now willing to co-manage fires with the state.
Senator Apa asked about the bio-diversity group out of Laramie Wyoming that is suing the US Forest
Service on the Black Hills management plan. Will they draw South Dakota into that lawsuit?
Secretary Gabriel said we are a joint cooperating agency and not a joint lead agency, so no, we will
not be part of this lawsuit.
Representative Glenski asked about the 2nd Black Hat crew, is it the same as what was approved at
Interim Committee. Joe Lowe responded yes, they have since named it the Bear Mountain crew.
Secretary Gabriel introduced Jon Farris, Director of the Division of Agricultural Development. Mr.
Farris' Division is a status-quo budget and so does not appear on your sheet.
Representative Putnam advised that there were questions on the State Fair but that discussion on the
fair will be held when the bill appears before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Senator Earley commented that last year when the Joint Committee went through the State Fair
budget, the group came to a three year agreement which is now in year two. Senator Earley
reminded the department that there were some accountability issues in that agreement that will need
to be discussed when the bill is discussed. Secretary Gabriel advised that his staff is preparing a
response that will indicate where the department fell short in the approval to budget. Secretary
Gabriel said there should have been a slight operating balance and they should not be requesting a
$653,944 appropriation.
Certified Beef Program: This program is a marketing plan that will add value to feeder cattle, fat
cattle and beef in a way that will address the concerns of consumers across the United States and the
world. A cow or calf producer would have to become licensed as a SD Certified Beef Producer. It
is a voluntary program. If you volunteer, you must agree to 1) electronically identify your animals
before they leave their place of birth, and 2) they must be scanned after each change of ownership.
The information on the ear tag will emit a number that will be stored on a computer. That will tell
us who raised the animal, who fed the animal and where it was processed. South Dakota will have
the most state-of-the art tracking system in the world. The only way to certify the quality of the
animal is with electronic surveillance. The product will be labeled in stores as SD Certified Beef.
This program could greatly increase the quality of beef.
Senator Smidt asked how much is known about market implications and incentives. Secretary
Gabriel said a consultant is working on quantifying the premium but it is hard to do. The branded
beef market is growing. No one is doing this in concert with a governmental agency. Some certify
the end product but no one does it all the way through.
Representative Haverly asked what the cost of the ID program would be especially as it relates to
the consumer. Secretary Gabriel said the product would be marketed to upscale restaurants. Yes,
there will be a cost but it will be offset by the marketability.
Representative Dennert asked if this is going to be a government or state involved program only as
record keeping and tracking the animal. Also, will this carry over to the national ID if that comes
to be. Secretary Gabriel assumes it will be national.
Animal Industry Board: Dr. Sam Holland presented the Animal Industry Board's budget with
assistance from Terry Johnson, Business Manager for the Board. In Personal Services the Governor
recommends an increase of $113,481 from federal funds and 2 FTE's for implementation of the
National Animal Identification System (NAIS). In Contractual Services the Governor recommends
an increase of $333,800 from federal funds: $110,000 for genetic testing of rams and $91,800 for
surveillance of Chronic Wasting Disease, $50,000 for on-going and continued support of animal
health emergency management training and an increase of $82,000 to develop and implement NAIS.
The Governor recommends an increase of $20,960 in federal funds which includes $3,200 for
surveillance of Chronic Wasting Disease and $17,760 to develop and implement NAIS. The
Governor also recommends a total reduction of $30,534 in Capital Outlay.
Senator Earley asked what happens to the two FTE's if federal funds to away. Dr. Holland
responded that all of their FTE's are exempt employees. There is no long term security. They
believe USDA will support the ID program for years to come. If that doesn't happen, the FTE are
dropped or the department comes to the Legislature for money. Dr. Holland said they are always
fully staffed and have never had extra FTE's.
Senator Earley asked if they can spend the money on something other than FTE's. Dr. Holland
advised they are not able to without amending the plan. The money would revert back to the USDA.
Representative Putnam asked if an FTE in this case might not mean a human being, you might take
that equivalency dollars and use it for part time or overtime and does your grant allow you to do that.
Representative Putnam asked if the Appropriations Committee has to order them to do that? Dr.
Holland advised that the Animal Industry Board identifies an FTE as a body. They can not, under
a cooperative agreement, take an FTE and buy ear tags or assist someone with managing a data base.
The money would go back to the USDA. Representative Putnam asked Dr. Holland if when they
delete an FTE it's a person. Dr. Holland said yes and FTE's never completely balance. Sometimes
there is money left because of retirements and shortages of certain classification types, such as
veterinarians.
Representative Hunhoff asked about collaborating programs mentioned earlier. Can what the
producer pays for the cost of the program come back to pay for part of these positions? Dr. Holland
said the ID program that government looks to for animal health and food safety is separate for the
reasons that producers track animals. We do not have complete animal tracking in this country.
Senator Greenfield asked what the Animal Industry Board was asking for in 2006 for Chronic Waste
Disease (CWD). Dr. Holland advised $100,000 ($91,800 for surveillance of CWD, $3,200 under
Supplies & Materials and $5,000 for Capital Outlay).
Senator Smidt asked about the increases in pounds of meat inspected. Dr. Holland said they started
reporting not only the inspections but the re-inspections. It is not an increase in work, just a different
way of reporting.
Committee recessed at 10:00 a.m.
Co-Vice Chair Representative Klaudt reconvened the meeting at 10:30 a.m.
Dr. Holland resumed his discussion of the Animal Industry Board budget. He distributed and
discussed at length a handout on the ID program (Document 2).
Senator Apa commented that in December the Animal Industry Board came before the Interim
Committee asking for funds and were turned down. Where in this proposed system would the
money requested be located? Dr. Holland said it would go to setting up a data base for animal health
and premises registration. The Animal Health Board would collect premises registrations from
individuals who want a premise number.
Secretary Apa asked if the state would be getting into the tag business. Dr. Holland responded no,
this would be done in private industry.
Representative Putnam resumed the Chair at 11:00 a.m.
Representative Peters asked about the 2 FTE in Personal Services and what the $82,000 was for.
Terry Johnson advised that the $113,000 in Personal Services was for the 2 FTE and the $82,000 in
Contractual Services was for people the Animal Industry Board may need to contract with. This may
not be used.
Marshall Edelman, cow/calf producer from Willow Lake spoke to the Joint Committee regarding
concerns with the proposed ID program from the industry standpoint. These concerns involve the
data ownership and storage and confidentiality issues. Mr. Edelman agrees that the premise
identification is a must and Dr. Holland has already started putting that in place. Mr. Edelman
already has a premise identification number. Mr. Edelman also agrees the Animal Industry Board
needs the $500,000 but he is concerned about how it will be spent. Mr. Edelman has a company
called Beef Origins that offers an animal identification and tracking system. The system is up and
running and he feels that with the program the Department of Agriculture is proposing, they will be
competing with private companies who are doing the same work. He said duplication of programs
is an unnecessary expense. It is Mr. Edelman's feeling that producers will be more willing to
volunteer to be part of the program if it is a private organization rather than a governmental agency.
A private data base will also solve the freedom of information act issue. Mr. Edelman said if
producers are paying to use the system they should be able to control it.
Secretary Gabriel responded that this is a complex issue. Before the Department of Agriculture
chose a company, they sent out RFP's. Mr. Edelman's company did not submit a proposal.
However, his parent company did. The Department of Agriculture chose them as the company that
could do the job at a fee of $950,000. The Department is required to go thru the RFP process. The
department has conferred with the Attorney General and under SD case laws, the information will
be kept in confidence. Secretary Gabriel said an animal ID database is needed to make the South
Dakota Certified Beef program work. This program will guarantee the consumer that the
Department of Agriculture will track an animal from birth to the grocery store.
In response to Representative Haverly's questions, Mr. Edelman said his company makes their
money in data management. Representative Haverly asked who buys their service and Mr. Edelman
responded that along with producers, some companies buy their service and re-sell it. Representative
Haverly asked what the producers were paying for. Mr. Edelman said his company doesn't sell the
data, it's owned by the producer. They are a data warehouse. That's what the Animal Industry
Board would be looking for is someone to access this data, to run a search on it and figure out where
the animal has been. Mr. Edelman's system is identical to what South Dakota wants, he just needs
the access codes. His company did not submit a proposal because they are producer driven.
Representative Putnam asked Secretary Gabriel to explain why the Animal Industry Board had
performed the animal identification project for one producer for free. Secretary Gabriel explained
that he was unaware of the incident at the time but defends the action taken. The individual
involved felt the fee charged by Mr. Edelman's company was too high and he chose to accommodate
the entry of data. The Animal Industry Board needs rule making authority so that they can have the
authority to provide this service but the fee needs to be commensurate with what is charged in the
private sector. Secretary Gabriel said the Department had made a mistake and he assured the Joint
Committee that he had addressed the problem in his department and it will not happen again.
Representative Klaudt asked if the chip in the ear tag identifies the company? Mr. Edelman said no.
If it is scanned, it will bring up the data associated with the tag. If Dr. Holland is utilizing a data
base that brings in all information into the same base, preferably a member of the Beef Information
Exchange. When the tag is read the information associated with that 15-digit number will come up
and show a chronological listing of all the information on the animal, tracing it back to birth.
Dr. Holland told the Joint Committee the biggest complexity issue is how the information will be
shared and made available. USDA is proposing a system for animal health data that says companies
share this information with the USDA and they will maintain the data. Mr. Edelman's company
wants to maintain this data also and if government wants the information come to Mr. Edelman's
company. However, it's not in place and far from it. The standard premise data base system is in
place. The animal identification numbering system is ready to unveil for animal health.
Senator Greenfield asked Mr. Edelman for his response to the incident where the animals were
enrolled at no-cost and also if his system could track an animal as it moves through the system. Mr.
Edelman said Secretary Gabriel was right, he did not send in an RFP. His company can do the
tracing. His data management system is designed exactly like the system the State of South Dakota
wants to design theirs. It's already in place. It is merely a matter of getting reporting features put
in and access codes and administrative access for state agencies to utilize the data. Mr. Edelman said
if you want a State database, you are just looking at the beginning of the costs. It's fine but it would
cost less and more efficiently if done privately. Mr. Edelman asked the Joint Committee to give
strong consideration to private industry.
Representative Hunhoff asked if the data needed for animal health vs. SD Beef, is that the same data
used for two different purposes. Dr. Holland responded that for animal health side they would use
part of the data. Can this information be used to promote beef? Secretary Gabriel said yes to some
degree.
Representative Haverly said it appears clear that the state would be in competition with a private
industry. Secretary Gabriel responded he didn't think so. Mr. Edelman was given an opportunity
to submit an RFP and chose not to. It's Mr. Gabriel's opinion that Mr. Edelman's company is not
able to do the work. Representative Haverly asked what the state intends to do, what is the end goal.
Secretary Gabriel responded that Mr. Edelman's company becomes a record management company
for a given farm or ranch. They can go to different levels of record keeping. A minimum system
or maybe more detailed, production records, etc. South Dakota has modified this system to include
a purge or exit field. It costs money to have companies include this in their system.
In Mr. Edelman's closing remarks he stated that yes, we would be unable to do that traceability
through Ag Info Link which is the company that he utilizes but they can customize the program any
way they need to for us. No, they did not submit an RFP to the Department of Agriculture. His
company is a producer driven company and they have policy on the books here in South Dakota that
they are not going to build a state controlled data base for our cattle. His company could not
condone putting together a state run system, they wanted it in private hands. As far as the credibility
issue goes, Mr. Edelman's company can provide a USDA processed verified system if that's what
South Dakota certified wants. Mr. Edelman hopes the Joint Committee gives strong consideration
to private industry. It is a serious situation. Mr. Edelman is looking at the future of the cattle
industry in South Dakota.
Committee recessed at 12:10 p.m.
The Joint Committee reconvened at 3:20 p.m. in the Kneip Building Conference Rooms to hear the
Department of Education's budget.
Secretary Melmer and the management team of the Department of Education (see page 14 in "Profile
of SD Schools) (Document 3) discussed the answers to questions seen on pages 8-13 of Document
4. The FY06 Governor's Recommended Budget is as follows:
State Aid $352,197,593
Grants $135,147,420
Agency Budget $ 23,313,030
TOTAL $510,658,043
Taking Advantage of Flexibilities (p.4 in Document 4) is measured two ways: Student achievement
and attendance or graduation rate.
The department now reviews progress in student achievement in three grade levels (3-5, 6-8, 11).
When considering attendance rate for the purpose of determining Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
, there are two ways to meet the requirement by showing improvement over their previous year's
attendance rate.
The update of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) responded by Secretary Dr. Rick Melmer.
A large number of middle schools fall into "Schools for Improvement" for several reasons, perhaps
most significantly because “Improvement Schools” do special ed. In large middle schools every
grade gets tested. They have more and larger sub groups - increasing the chance of being listed for
improvement need.
Senator Earley asked whether the system is fair to which Secretary Melmer responded with a no in
reference to the special education division.
Senator Smidt inquired as to how much more money is going towards NCLB and for what purposes
to which Secretary Melmer stated that investing dollars in creating practice exams for teacher
qualification is a part of but not a large percentage of the dollars. The Federal Government is
reviewing highly qualified teacher status. This is a concern because in rural states the teachers have
to teach more than one subject area. It was also noted that the report regarding this issue is not back.
Smidt wanted to know further if there was money to address the issue. Secretary Melmer said that
the teacher quality review will give us an idea of the money.
(Budget as shown in Document 4, page 5) The recommended budget totals $510 million of which
69% percent is state aid to schools. There are two primary requests in the non-State Aid budget for
the department: Mileage increase as well as an increase in state janitorial wages.
120101 - Secretary's office: Additional funds are recommended to support the Indian Education
Coordinator within the office (page 6 of Document 4) General funds to support this.
120102 Office of Finance and Management: no change
1222 Office of Career and Technical Education: 100% Federal Funds to support a new FTE, health
occupations coordinator to provide technical assistance in the area of health occupations.
Senator Smidt wanted to know if theFY05 appropriations from the education enhancement trust fund
was an ongoing number. To which the reply was that it was to the development and delivery of
curriculum on a one-time basis.
Senator Earley asked how the Department of Education handles the federal funds. Mr. Stacey
Krusemark said that the FTE is half federal and half general. Working with the Department of Health
for an ongoing FTE and an ongoing revenue source from the Department of Health. A concern was
voiced that if this source dried up, would the position be cut. Mr. Krusemark said yes. Chairman
Putnam wanted to know of the expenditure authority of which Mr. Krusemark said that the federal
money will go directly to the DOE after it had made its way through the Department of Health.
Representative Hunhoff asked what will this position do working with these industries. Gloria
Smith-Rockhold said it is to encourage future students and for developing curriculum. There are only
7 health occupation programs within the state. We need to generate interest and programs in the
secondary education level, and the funding will do so. The reason we need more help before we build
more numbers for the program is that the individuals currently staffed already have too much
responsibility and need more help.
FY06
Representative Glenski wanted to know in regards to postsecondary technical schools, if students'
tuition for basic courses cross over classes with state university schools, who gets that tuition
money? The money goes to the university but the loss of revenue to vo-tech schools would be
replaced.
LRC analysis p. 290m-Education resources.
Question 5 & 8: What is the department doing differently in the reading initiative and explain the
purpose and operation of the South Dakota Reads Program. Explain the purpose and operation of
the Reading First Program. What are the differences between the two programs?
Tammy Bauck: Program overview for South Dakota Reads: a year-long professional development
system for K-5 classroom teachers, Title I teachers, and special education teachers. The purpose is
to guide instruction in reading and reading assessment to improve student achievement. Participants
in the program participate in graduate level course work through a monthly class conducted by a
South Dakota Reads literacy coach. This coach spends about one day a month with each of their
participants going into the classroom to coach, mentor, and/or model instructional reading strategies
that relate to the graduate study.
Program Overview for South Dakota Reading First: a federally funded program designed to provide
both states and districts with the needed assistance to establish research-based reading programs for
K-3 students. The purpose of Reading First is to ensure that all children learn to read at the proficient
level by the end of third grade. South Dakota will receive $14.5 million in Reading First Funds over
the next six years. The eligibility requirements a Local Education Agency (LEA) has to meet in order
to be eligible to apply are:
1 *
The LEA has a minimum of 75 third graders or 50% of its third graders scoring below grade
level (basic or below basic on the SAT10); and
2 *
The LEA has jurisdiction over an area designated as an empowerment zone, or an enterprise
community, under part I of subchapter U of chapter I of the Internal Revenue Code; or
3 *
Schools identified for school improvement under Title I, Part A; or
4 *
LEAs with a minimum of 250 students or 23% of its students who are counted for allocations
under Title I , Part A.
SD Reads 5th year was initially called AREA
To be involved in SD Reads you just want to be involved - no special need required.
Representative Klaudt wanted to have some statistics for a benchmark. Ms Bauck stated there is an
annual evaluation, but is not done yet for comparison. Representative Klaut: How long will this
program be in duty? Ms Bauck stated there is a three-year commitment in funding. But not beyond
the next year, in a formal program.
Representative Glenski asked if this information has been shared with teachers to which Ms Bauck
said that some alignment is being made. To further clarify Representative Glenski asked if most of
the teachers have had it in their college training or what are the colleges doing? The problem is that
some of the teachers are hired from outside the public universities either in different states or from
some private university. Representative wanted to know why SD Reads has been shared with public
universities, but not shared with private universities. This question was answered with a yes but there
is not control as far as overall uniformity in those private schools. Senator Smidt inquired about
accountability. If the improvement of reading standards continues how does it relate? Ms Bauck said
that the training is passed on.
Program total cost FY05 is 2.1 million FY06 1.5 Million.
Senator Earley asked what has changed that the program costs have decreased instead of increased.
Ms Bauck said that there are now fewer teachers to train. Senator Apa wanted to know if there were
assessments in how teachers are teaching the reading courses. Mr. Melmer replied that he was
unaware of any such system.
Senator Apa raised his concern that he thought that a domino system would occur if a teacher cannot
teach due to unavailability of the training program at the time of his/her education, then the student
would not be able to learn the program, and then the tax payer would be penalized. Ms Bauck said
that this is not a large concern as graduates are able to be brought up to speed for the program due
to research. Representative Hunhoff asked if the program would exist once the teachers have gone
through the program, of which was clarified that indeed this was correct. Representative Klaudt
asked if SD Reads Teachers should be coming out of higher education already trained for this. Mr.
Melmer replied that a lot of the teachers at SD Reads are not right of college, but the teachers that
do come out of state colleges are prepared. Representative Hunhoff asked Chairman Putnam if the
program discontinues, are we looking for funding for this year? Representative Putnum replied this
is for the current spending year. Senator Bartling wanted to know if SD Reads program was vital
last year as a match, do we have federal funds in jeopardy again? Mr. Krusemark said that it was a
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant. The matching at the time was TTLs and SD Reads program.
SD Reads ends with FY06.
SD Reading First Program
Senator Hunhoff: Could somebody participate in both programs? Ms Bauck stated that someone
could but there really is no reason why as some parts of the programs overlap with each other.
Representative Haverly asked if these are state grants on Reading First? The department answered
this is a 6-year grant 14.5 million federal dollars spread across the 6 years. Federal money is coming
through us. Representative Peters asked if the same number of people are coming in but there is more
money to spend on them, why? Ms Bauck stated that some will be given out at schools but some
will be put towards more professional development.
Representative Haverly wanted to know how the money is expended if they have money for 5 FTEs
and you only have authority for 1 FTE? Mr Krusemark replied that they have to have an FTE to run
the program, but if not utilizing them the federal dollars will continue to go on to the next year.
Question 9 e-Learning (page10 of Document 4)
Senator Earley asked how far can we go with e-learning and when do we say you can't have any
more? Ms Bauck replied that people keep taking it because it is free, until we make everyone pay
for it we won't know. Senator Earley asked where are we going from a education standpoint? To
which Mr. Melmer replied that at NSU, they are reaching a physical capacity. And that a virtual
highschool is already in existence, explaining, that virtual means anytime, anyplace. E-learning
programs are getting maxed out.
Senator Smidt voiced his concern that small schools are having more opportunity for exposure, but
at some point a fee will have to be assessed. Mr. Melmer said that his biggest concern is dollars and
first come first serve system. That this really is more of an equity question. Most schools do prefer
a physical instructor but can substitute with the e-learning. Representative Klaudt wanted to know
what it is currently costing, if there was a state record. Mr. Melmer DOE has not tracked this.
123206 office of Accreditation and Teacher Quality.
Secretary Melmer commented on the perception that more dollars needed for graduation (22 credits
required) requirements.
The question was asked why more money was needed for graduation when the number of credits has
not increased. Representative Glenski thought that with more advanced courses require more
advanced teachers but Mr. Melmer said that no, those advanced courses are not part of graduation
requirements.
123207 - Office of School Enhancement
5 *
$1.3 million increase in federal authority for anticipated increase in funds from U.S.
Department of Agriculture for Child and Adult Nutrition Services program.
6 *
$800,000 in federal fund authority to develop a new computer system that maintains the
School Lunch/Breakfast and Commodities programs. This would be a Web-based system.
7 *
$35,000 increase in general funds to meet our school food service inspection requirements.
123208 - Office of Educational Service Agencies
Funding for ESAs changed from Education Enhancement Trust Fund to general fund of $500,000.
Mr.Wade Pogany stated that the ESAs hired 25 people to work with everyone in the state. He and
they are very pleased. Schools are appreciative.
Senator Sutton asked what is the anticipated total cost of the ESA Mr. Pogany stated that is 1.7
million. A concern was voiced by Representative Putnam of measurement and how it is
accomplished. Mr. Pogany said that this was done through a midterm report.
Senator Greenfield wanted to know about the Office of School Enhancement with the school lunch
and breakfast programs. Mr. Pogany reinstated that commodities are a large percentage, but a large
percentage was spent on the mainframe program. Goal of this is that it needs to be a Web based
system, rather than a paper trail. Exact cost is not known yet. Representative Putnam wanted to know
if this was mandated to which Mr. Pogany said that it is both efficiency and mandated. (Bullet on
page 7 of Document 4)
Mr. Krusemark stated that there are no FTEs associated with this budget item but that specific
federal dollars are used for specific federal purpose (1.3 million). Senator Smidt asked where the
extra federal money was accounted for with the response from Mr. Krusemark that the federal
allocation of Title I grant dollars are targeted toward poverty schools and districts - based on census
information.
Senator Apa wondered who generates the evaluation report on ESAs. The department answered that
Technology Innovation and Education (TIE) will evaluate them.
123208 - Office of Educational Services and Support
8 *
Additional Federal Authority in anticipation of increases in various federal grants, including
Title programs ($3.4 million) and IDEA ($3.2 million)
Most money is anticipated to go for educational service and support.
121 State Aid
Refer to appendix Boxes for more details.
1211 - State Aid to General Education - The per student allocation increases 2.9% from $4086.45
in FY05 to $4205.26 in FY06. The state's obligation in FY06 increases by $5,465,951 compared to
the FY05 budget. Left over State Aid from FY05 is estimated to be $5,053,144. These funds will be
carried over to pay for the increased obligation in FY06. The remaining $412,807 will come from
an increase in the State Aid appropriation for FY06. See the State Aid summary documents in the
9 *
1212 - State Aid to Special Education - increase of $500,000 to cover the statutory 2.0%
increase in the per student allocation (levels 1-6). See the State Aid to Special Educatin
summary document in the appendix for more information.
FY06 State Aid To Special Education Estimate (in the back in the handout in appendix)
Representative Rausch wondered what happens when a student moves. The answer was that
the formula is driven off the previous December child count and is used for a building block for this
fiscal year, with a one year lag. Representative Haverly asked along the same lines can a district bill
another district if the money is not able to be moved. Mr. Krusemark said that the district that they
are in is responsible, it has to absorb the cost.
1219 - Technology in schools
10 *
The Technology in Schools budget has a funding switch of $2 million from general funds to
other fund authority. The current Other fund authority budgeted is sufficient, and thus no
increase is shown in that fund source. Revenue from E-Rate will be used to support the
ongoing services provided to school districts through this budget. See the Dakota Digital
Network (DDN) budget summary in the appendix for details.
MOTION:
ADJOURN
Moved by: Greenfield
Second by: Tidemann
Action: Prevailed by voice vote.
Barb Bjorneberg and Wendy Weinert