[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6341995,"mediaKeyId","2256188-641baa4adb7abf1fa8243b108d89ca9a","parentId",2256188,"title","Senate panel hears Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired budget requests and reporting changes","audioSeconds",109,"startMs",1775000,"endMs",1884000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2256188-641baa4adb7abf1fa8243b108d89ca9a&start=1775&end=1884","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2256188-641baa4adb7abf1fa8243b108d89ca9a/thumbnail_1775000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6341995/Texas/Senate-panel-hears-Texas-School-for-the-Blind-and-Visually-Impaired-budget-requests-and-reporting-changes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6341995-dba36c7e0280e411fc5466742e7aa9d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770565488&Signature=N4ezMUKasvz9szbmF5xPhDJ3iaLhX6yuge~fGqVit5fmJqAlVBq~8FoUIvnnYTKt0i8m9O8N73IOxUlPC1yx18skhdK0BZtnbgNg0NWIi-pcNKembbWS~CK0wyIBT9tdc7H4ZoZSMOP1E4uP2T781QJjP9FFpE~DTdzG9bt4wANUmbFNr9k-b9jfTrl7TFC6seBQrdUnkN0UapRTgP6fYNJtTMmpXWjb6Q3AZrDkszDhJXP5A129vxBp8mxip8LT1V63o-lrohGZPKzLunoFrNqEcydm40XKYirIvZoTzJNdNfHQWfX0Iemy4CTl7g7WRgUaDiuyJkjSNXjNNSpBAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Texas Senate Session","date","2025-02-10T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Finance Committee heard budget testimony from the Legislative Budget Board and the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired on Wednesday. LBB summarized a 2026–27 all‑funds recommendation of about $72.9 million for TSBVI — a roughly 6.6% increase over the 2024–25 base — driven largely by educator salary biannualization, increased general‑revenue support for related services and higher transportation costs tied to residential student homegoing services.

Nut graf: LBB recommended several technical and rider changes and highlighted recurring funding increases that would cover staffing and related services; TSBVI’s own agency requests included salary adjustments, additional outreach and training (including a new teacher mentor program to support a new deaf‑blind certification), campus infrastructure and a small athletic pitch request for blind soccer.

LBB presenter Antonio Najera told the committee recommendations include $900,000 to maintain educator salary increases tied to Austin ISD parity; about $5.7 million in GR increases for related services and central administration that offset a decline in federal reimbursements; and $1.6 million for transportation, including $1 million for charter bus services for weekend homegoing. Najera recommended transferring an agency rider into special provisions so the same contingency language can apply to both TSBVI and the School for the Deaf.

TSBVI Superintendent Emily Coleman described program areas: statewide outreach and training, short‑term programs, and comprehensive residential placements for students with multi‑complex needs. She urged lawmakers to consider expanded outreach funding, support for university teacher‑preparation partnerships, a $2,500 stipend for contracted instructional staff (agency rider change), cybersecurity and technology upgrades, and a small blind‑soccer pitch to expand athletic opportunities for students with visual impairments.

Ending: LBB kept the agency’s capital and exceptional items on the request list but did not include major new capital in the baseline. Committee members did not act on the TSBVI exceptional items during the hearing; the school and the LBB will remain available for follow‑up questions and cost estimates as budget deliberations continue.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee on Finance February 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Legislative Budget Board recommended targeted biennial increases for the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired (TSBVI) including staffing, special education related services and transportation; agency asked lawmakers to consider expanded outreach, teacher stipends and a blind‑soccer pitch.","taxTitle","Senate, Legislative, Texas","taxId",16215,"location","Texas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6341998,"Texas School for the Deaf asks Senate Finance for $35.3M central‑plant funding; LBB recommends smaller biennial increases",402,99000,501000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2256188-641baa4adb7abf1fa8243b108d89ca9a&start=99&end=501","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2256188-641baa4adb7abf1fa8243b108d89ca9a/thumbnail_99000.jpg","/articles/6341998/Texas/Texas-School-for-the-Deaf-asks-Senate-Finance-for-353M-centralplant-funding-LBB-recommends-smaller-biennial-increases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6341998-21ac080c03b188e3a1494f94d8ded5fa/orig.mp4?Expires=1770565488&Signature=BJfPryJAyqiqhHakDg3AgfzIIobgN9~7--EaRbgHzPn9gCQbI9Gs9W0DytK8URxInq3SO4WnsMBwOUEaQTooZuuvnaXQOtYWbru~oOD6auL-vG-EJ88wLjLhMgyyaJFh04UhHZym6J-hnn6zbN6cXtwws-rKsp97mEaFbEDsR0Hpxh0UyTobtu2r32Y849zcG1Le~vBnfKnJVBoWxZlzwjoKwy5prI6or5HU~z5S1r-wDxsbFoZABuoiMzcbe9QkW8ip3Ramc3O4VwTi2uHjRDGVf4PDnIuNE9iE5iXJtOgtAHAE07mMqZ2abgX2Wll9Yhm4pv6qLGkfWYrJVFcH-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Texas School for the Deaf told the Senate Finance Committee it needs a major capital appropriation to replace and expand its central utility plant and asked lawmakers to consider a $35.3 million exceptional item for campus master plan phase 3B.

LBB presenter Antonio Najera summarized recommendations and noted the board did not include TSD’s $35.3 million exceptional item in the baseline but recommended other targeted increases for the TSD 2026–27 biennium. Najera said recommendations include a roughly $84.9 million all‑funds biennial recommendation for TSD — a modest increase from the 2024–25 base driven by required educator salary biannualization, increased general‑revenue support for federally mandated special education services, and higher transportation costs.

Nut graf: TSD officials told the committee the campus central utility plant — which supplies heating, chilled water and HVAC to most occupied spaces including dormitories — is nearing end of life and currently operates at roughly 90 percent capacity. The school said the $35.3 million would expand chilled and heating water systems to support future master‑plan growth and reduce recurring reliability risk.

During committee questions, senators pressed school leaders about staffing and recruitment, bilingual stipends, transportation for residential students, and the voluntary residency and teacher compensation environment for deaf‑education teachers. TSD superintendent Peter Bailey described recruitment challenges: the pool of certificated deaf‑education teachers nationally is very small — the school competes with other Texas districts and out‑of‑state cost‑of‑living barriers and relies on bilingual stipends to attract some staff.

TSD CFO Justin Woodell told the committee the school requested salary increases tied to the statewide educator salary initiative (Austin ISD parity) and sought roughly $3.5 million in general revenue to maintain federally mandated special education program staffing (about 30.7 FTEs). Transportation costs for residential ‘‘homegoing’’ services were cited at about $2 million annually; LBB recommended $7.6 million for transportation in the 2026–27 biennium to reflect both daily local and weekly homegoing charter/airline transports.

Ending: The committee left the request on the record; LBB included the school’s finance details in their Article 3 packet and recommended the exceptional central‑plant item remain on the agency’s request list for future consideration. If approved by legislators, the capital upgrade would be a one‑time appropriation and would not be part of TEA’s baseline funding included in SB1.","The Texas School for the Deaf (TSD) presented budget recommendations to the Senate Finance Committee, seeking a $35.3 million exceptional item to upgrade the central utility plant. LBB recommended maintenance funding and smaller targeted increases for salaries, special education services and transportation in 2026–27.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342003,"Senate finance staff: SB1 would boost school funding but leaves hard questions on distribution",2179,1116000,3295000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2256188-641baa4adb7abf1fa8243b108d89ca9a&start=1116&end=3295","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2256188-641baa4adb7abf1fa8243b108d89ca9a/thumbnail_1116000.jpg","/articles/6342003/Texas/Senate-finance-staff-SB1-would-boost-school-funding-but-leaves-hard-questions-on-distribution","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342003-2b3e82c2eb503631a30a28adc96744bb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770565488&Signature=ixWAQR20ITk9CDSQttNdQ20hYi1Y2A0-rpWvlSyFsXFg0jcYl9X0AsG7kHpat-k4cqofxFKuetXQnpff8rQ0hdPoiGvT9W5VfmmfRD2o6Q42FTo8dIZlzwikBWIq8ynyOW9TTM7jHx~awERKhB-THObK1UJvnfqJpirw2w56T6W5nFZCH1TJmNWbV1UVW4viRFUTNJl2qU6~IbhiKwWcSkneJjOcse6Y3w4y1-XJKkJU-WNbdlisY5EhYS5FX3SBFTnEvJGKMeWCSLdiBSIXyWwW92o-~sGVf3rwQ7PePBUxl6Jn0YYldc1CKUa1s1zwG8r7EOSPceRAC8K9cdonXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Texas Senate Finance Committee heard detailed budget briefings and testimony Wednesday on the Foundation School Program and other parts of the Texas Education Agency budget, with Legislative Budget Board staff and TEA officials saying the introduced Senate bill would increase state support for public education by billions but leaves important distribution choices for the full Legislature to resolve. LBB officials said SB1 recommendations include about $71.3 billion in all funds for the FSP in 2026–27, an increase of roughly $11.7 billion from the 2024–25 base; general‑revenue increases of about $7.9 billion drive much of the change.

The presentation emphasized that most of the increase flows through the FSP and related statutory mechanisms. Maggie Yipson of the Legislative Budget Board told the committee the introduced bill contains contingency appropriations for policy items that require separate legislation: a $1 billion contingency for an education savings account program and another $750 million contingent increase for the Teacher Incentive Allotment intended to expand the number of designated teachers who get bonuses.

The nut graf: LBB and TEA officials said the headline numbers are large but that local effects will depend on technical assumptions — projected student growth, property values and yields — and on whether the contingent items are enacted. Committee members pressed TEA Commissioner Mike Morath and LBB staff on how increases should be directed between a higher basic allotment (broad, flexible funding) and targeted programs such as teacher compensation, school safety and special education.

Among specific budget drivers the LBB attributed to SB1 and the introduced pattern: $1.7 billion for weighted student growth, estimated additional costs for tax‑compression and recapture changes tied to property values, roughly $804.7 million for changes to yields and $754.3 million tied to the teacher incentive allotment. LBB testimony also highlighted an estimated $51 billion in state spending on property tax relief over the 2026–27 biennium under the introduced plan, including a $3 billion conditional transfer to the Property Tax Relief Fund to support increased homestead exemptions (contingent on legislation).

TEA Commissioner Morath told the committee the package ‘‘fully funds the FSP’’ and preserves support for non‑FSP programs, and he described the introduced bill as a mix of flexible funding for districts and targeted investments aimed at higher return interventions (for example, curriculum and teacher preparation). Morath and LBB witnesses also noted the fading of sizeable one‑time federal ESSER (COVID) funds and the resulting ‘‘fiscal cliff’’ districts face.

Committee members pressed for details: how the $1.7 billion for ‘‘student growth’’ breaks down by special‑education and bilingual weights, how the proposed $750 million TIA contingency would be implemented and how districts should use tier‑2/’golden penny’ money. LBB and TEA said detailed distributional and settle‑up numbers will change as TEA updates enrollment and property‑value projections in March and as potential legislation that activates contingency riders is decided.

Ending — what to watch next: the committee will consider how to convert contingency appropriations into statute (for example TIA expansions or an education savings account), and how much of the new funding to put in the basic allotment (broad, flexible dollars) versus targeted allotments for teacher pay, special education, or school safety. LBB and TEA said updated enrollment, property‑value and compensation proposals due this spring could materially change final cost and distribution estimates.","Legislative Budget Board and Texas Education Agency witnesses told the Senate Finance Committee that the introduced budget (SB1) adds billions to public education — most flowing through the Foundation School Program — while contingency items and program choices will determine how money reaches districts and teachers.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate panel hears Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired budget requests and reporting changes

Texas School for the Deaf asks Senate Finance for $35.3M central‑plant funding; LBB recommends smaller biennial increases

Senate finance staff: SB1 would boost school funding but leaves hard questions on distribution