The May 2013 Idaho General Fund Revenue Report opens the possibility Idaho will have $162 million more in revenue on hand (than was expected less than two months ago) when the Legislature convenes in January 2014.

On May 7th, 2013 the Idaho Division of Financial Management (DFM) released April 2013 General Fund revenue results. You can access that report here.

What it shows is overall revenue exceeded the projected amount for the month by $56.4 million (13.2%), and now stands $79.1 million (3.5%) higher than projected for the first ten months of fiscal year 2013. This is a significant departure from the revenue forecasts the FY 2013 and FY 2014 budgets are based on, and it has significant implications for the fiscal condition Idaho’s state budget faces in those two years (and beyond).

FY 2013

Starting with FY 2013, if the months of May 2013 and June 2013 come in exactly on target, FY 2013 will end the year with 5.8% General Fund revenue growth, rather than the 2.7% growth the Executive and Legislative budgets were based on. Assuming there are no unanticipated reversions or rescissions, this will trigger an additional $59.1 million transfer to the Budget Stabilization Fund (per House Bill 345) in FY 2013, a $20 million higher FY 2013 ending balance, and a $27.4 million transfer to the Budget Stabilization Fund in FY 2014 (per Idaho Code 57-814).

These changes can be illustrated using a revised version of the table on page A-26 of the 2013 Legislative Session Budget Activities Summary published by DFM. Instead of comparing the ‘Revised Executive Budget’ and the ‘Legislative Appropriation’ columns, this version compares the ‘Legislative Appropriation’ column (i.e., as of the end of the 2013 Legislative session) and a new ‘Legislative Appropriation With General Fund Revenue Through April 2013′ column. Here’s the revised table:

Because of House Bill 345, the extra $79.1 million in FY 2013 General Fund revenue goes to two places: up to the first $20.0 million of ending balance above the amount provided in the Legislative Appropriation stays in the General Fund and simply increases the ending balance. Any additional amount above $20.0 million is transfered to the Budget Stabilization Fund, in this case $59.1 million.

FY 2014

Shifting to FY 2014, if the forecasted General Fund revenue growth rate of 5.3% that was adopted by both the Executive and Legislative budgets remains unchanged, the resulting amount of General Fund revenue forecast for FY 2014 is $2,882.4 million – an $83.3 million increase over the revenue number that was used in the FY 2014 budget. Also, because FY 2013 General Fund revenue growth is now expected to grow by 5.8%, that triggers a $27.4 million transfer to the Budget Stabilization Fund in FY 2014. When combined with the $20 million higher beginning balance (from FY 2013), this brings the projected FY 2014 ending balance up from $51.0 million to $126.9 million.

These changes can be illustrated using a revised version of the table on page A-30 of the 2013 Legislative Session Budget Activities Summary published by DFM. As above, instead of comparing the ‘Revised Executive Budget’ and the ‘Legislative Appropriation’ columns, this version compare’s the ‘Legislative Appropriation’ column and a new ‘Legislative Appropriation With General Fund Revenue Through April’ column. Here’s the revised table:

The key changes are a higher beginning balance (up $20 million), higher FY 2014 General Fund revenue (up $83.2 million), a $27.4 million transfer to the Budget Stabilization Fund, and a higher ending balance (up $75.9 million). Not shown, because it was transfered to the Budget Stabilization Fund in FY 2013, is the $59.1 million that would have rolled over into the FY 2014 beginning balance were it not for House Bill 345.

The most significant aspect of the April revenue result is its impact on future budget decisions. This can be seen by looking at ongoing revenues versus ongoing expenditures. At the end of the 2013 Legislative session ongoing FY 2014 revenue was expected to be $2,775.3 million: the $2,799.1 base revenue forecast minus $23.8 million in ongoing revenue adjustments (see 2013 Legislative Session Budget Activities Summary page A-17). Most of the revenue adjustments ($20 million) were to pay for new business personal property tax exemptions. Ongoing appropriations were set at $2,762.4 million (see 2013 Legislative Session Budget Activities Summary page A-24), yielding a positive funding gap of $12.9 million. If the base revenue figure increases by an additional $83.2 million, the funding gap grows to $96.1 million. This is an indication of the amount of “surplus” ongoing revenue that could be in play when the legislature returns for the 2014 session in about 8 months.

Conclusion

The April revenue results have profound implications for fiscal decisions that will be made in the next legislative session. While the numbers will change (for example, we don’t yet know actual May and June revenue numbers, and we don’t know what revised forecast growth rate will be used for FY 2014), it is clear there will be substantially more revenue available than policymakers thought less than two months ago. How this additional revenue is utilized will depend on Idaho’s public policy priorities.

A proposal (RS22034) is circulating that would enact the much anticipated personal property tax exemption. In a nutshell, this proposal would be devastating to the funding of Idaho’s public schools. Other state programs (colleges and universities, health and human services, public safety, etc.) would be adversely impacted, but none to the degree of public schools.

RS22034 would completely exempt all business personal property from the property tax, yielding a property tax revenue loss estimated by the Idaho Tax Commission at $140.9 million in FY 2012 dollars (after full phase-in over 6 years). Existing property tax levies across all taxing districts (with the exception of urban renewal districts¹) would be eligible for a combination of a) replacement funding from the state’s General Fund and b) property tax levy rate increases (i.e., a tax shift to real property).

The property tax levy rate increases (so-called “3% flooring”) would cover the loss of the first 3% of the total property tax in each district, and is estimated to shift up to $41.2 million of property taxes away from personal property, and on to real property. This shift would apply to all property tax districts (except urban renewal districts), and would result in higher property taxes on homeowners, farmers, timberland, and businesses with relatively small shares of personal property value.

Property tax replacement funding would apply to revenue loss exceeding 3% of a district’s total property tax, and is estimated to cost the state’s General Fund $90.5 million² upon full phase-in. This replacement funding applies only to levies in place as of 2012, is fixed in perpetuity at the 2012 level (except in the case of voter approved levies), and is not available for levies enacted after 2012. In particular, any voter approved levies (school supplemental levies, bond levies, plant facility levies, etc.) that expire during or after the phase-in period lose their replacement funding, and any voter approved levies that are enacted in 2013 or beyond (school supplemental levies, bond levies, plant facility levies, etc.) are not eligible for replacement funding. This means that most non-school district levies (cities, counties, highway districts, etc.) are afforded perpetual replacement, while most school district levies (supplemental, bond, plant facility, etc.) will roll off and their replacement funding will be extinguished³.

Thus the design of RS22034 holds non-school taxing districts relatively harmless (in the near-term) by shifting up to $41.2 million of property tax from personal to real property, and removing up to $90.5 million from the state General Fund (that will not be available to fund education, health care, public safety, and other critical services provided by state programs) to replace revenue lost from the personal property exemption.

Public schools end up the big loser in what amounts to a three-pronged hit:

1)   $90.5 million is removed from the state General Fund, half of which is used to fund public schools. Idaho’s public school funding effort has declined from 4.4% of Idaho personal income in the 1980’s and 1990’s to just 3.4% of Idaho personal income in the 2014 Executive Budget. That’s a 23% decline in a decade and a half, and represents a funding reduction of half a billion dollars. Losing another $90 million of General Fund revenue to fund tax cuts will virtually guarantee continued decline in Idaho’s public school funding effort.

2)   Up to $41.2 million of additional property tax levies are shifted to real property, and will have a high probability of making voters less inclined to support voter approved levies such as school supplemental, school bond, and school plant facility levies. The 2006 swap of increased sales tax for reduced school property tax levies was supposed to shift the responsibility for paying for school operating expenses off the property tax and on to state appropriations, but the reality is Idaho’s school districts have been increasingly driven to raising property taxes to fund operating expenses. In the current school year (2012-13) voter-approved supplemental levies increased by 20%. Almost three-quarters of Idaho’s 115 public school districts now have voter approved supplemental levies for operating purposes. Most will expire in one to two years.

3)   No replacement funding for voter approved levies enacted after 2012 will mean schools are on their own with the reduced property tax base. Property tax base losses will range from less than 2% to over 50% across Idaho’s public school districts (school district detail is shown in the attached Table 6, taken from Tax Commission report EPB0703_01-15-2013). When these districts go to their voters for property tax levies they will have to ask for higher levy rates to raise the same amount of revenue. For example, if a district losses 20% of its property tax base to the personal property tax exemption, it will have to ask for a levy rate that is 25% higher to raise the same amount of revenue. If the property tax base loss is 40%, the levy to raise the same amount of revenue would need to be 67% higher. The current wide disparities in property tax capacity across Idaho’s school districts will be exacerbated.

In summary, RS22034 is notable for the adverse impact it will have on Idaho’s ability to provide funds for public education. It does protect non-school local government from much of the revenue losses associated with full exemption of personal property taxes, but it does so with a significant amount of revenue diverted from the General Fund, and without any apparent analysis of the impact that diversion of funds will have on state programs.

¹ Urban renewal districts are not eligible for replacement funds, but they can receive special shift levies if they can prove to the Idaho Tax Commission they are unable to make bond payments under the exemption of business personal property. Their shift levies would be applied only to the remaining increment values within the urban renewal district.

² This figure does not take into account voter approved levies that lose their replacement funding when they expire.

³ As of the 2011-12 school year, school district property tax levies totaled $393.0 million. $139.6 million was in supplemental M&O levies, $111.0 was in bond levies, and $39.4 million was in plant facility levies. In the 2012-13 school year supplemental levies increased to $169 million.

For a PDF version of this document, click here.

Packer introduced the bill on behalf of Boise’sStanton Healthcare, after the organization purchased two ultrasound machines and were charged a sales tax. The organization didn’t think it should be subject to sales tax because it is a non-profit, and because it’s a health related entity, which are largely tax exempt in Idaho.

“That little amount of money to the state creates a huge concern for them,” Packer says. According to Packer, Stanton’s tax bill on the ultrasound machines was $6,000.

Rep. Grant Burgoyne (D-Boise) says the Legislature shouldn’t make policy based on one organization’s misunderstanding of the law. “We’re backing our way into a policy because someone got caught up in a mistake,” Burgoyne says.

More than one lawmaker, including Burgoyne, suggested maybe it’s time Idaho look at the sales tax policy, and perhaps broaden exemptions to include all non-profits, rather than selecting exempt entities piecemeal.

“There are many other organizations that are also worthy of an exemption,” Burgoyne added. “Clinics that deal with the mentally ill, those who deal with suicide issues, those who deal with things like Alzheimer’s and diabetes and nutrition.”

It’s unclear how much sales tax revenue Idaho stands to lose if this exemption becomes law. Rep. Packer’s bill estimates the state could lose $10,000 annually.

The tax exemption proposal now heads to the Senate for consideration.

Idaho’s Legislature is debating the establishment of a state-run health insurance exchange. But with a federally run health insurance exchange, we all may end up with more choices and better service.

Gov. Butch Otter supports the creation of a state-run health insurance exchange as directed under the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. The costs of operating such an exchange at the state level are high and the potential benefits, if any, uncertain.

Perhaps more important, a federally run exchange could be the best thing to happen to health care consumers in quite awhile. A federally run health insurance exchange is more likely to lead a to national market for the sale of health insurance. A national market will lead to more competition and better service.

Economic theory predicts and historical evidence shows that prices decline as markets open to more competition. Just as countries benefit when they open their borders to international trade, trade between the states is good for everyone. Selling health insurance across state lines can improve choices and lower prices.

Insurance companies need large markets to achieve economies of scale. Many businesses seek the cost advantages that come from spreading their fixed costs over a higher level of output. For health insurance providers, the fixed costs of setting up policies and establishing relationships with doctors and hospitals can be very high. Allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines is one way to spread out these costs.

Many consumers complain that their health insurance premiums are too high and their policies too hard to understand. But similar complaints are rarely heard about car and life insurance, which can be purchased across state lines from large firms operating in a very competitive market.

Two years ago, researchers from the University of Minnesota published a study showing that an interstate market for health insurance would increase coverage and lower premiums. Their data show that Idaho could expect a 17 percent increase in health insurance coverage if a national market were established. With more buyers of health insurance, the risks to the insurance company fall and premiums decline.

Recent experiments in interstate sales of health insurance have brought little or no change. Georgia’s market is open to outside insurance carriers, and Wyoming put forth a proposal for an interstate exchange, but both states have seen little action from insurance companies. Without a national market, there is little incentive for insurance companies or health care providers to make the capital and labor investments needed to support interstate transactions.

The situation is analogous to interstate banking. In 1975, Maine opened its markets to branch banking and saw little change in services or prices. It was not until all states followed in the early 1990s that the benefits of interstate banking became evident. It will take time and many state-law changes, but a more open market will lead to better consumer choices and lower prices.

There’s no need to bother with a state-run exchange. Washington can bring lower health insurance premiums and better coverage to us.

The three measures mirror versions introduced in the same committee last month. They were submitted again Monday to reflect changes brought about by six hours of negotiations between school board officials, the teachers union, lawmakers and other education stakeholders.

The bills, being pushed by the Idaho School Boards Association, would change the nature of negotiations that occur each year on so-called master contracts – the broad agreements that cover salaries and benefits, as well as issues such as length of school year and teacher duties outside the classroom.

Karen Echeverria, ISBA executive director, said the version introduced Monday would allow for two-year extensions on master agreements dealing with non-salary issues. Salaries and benefits, she said, would be negotiated annually. Not everything in the revised bills has the support of the Idaho Education Association.

“We knew there were going to be issues we simply were not going to be able to agree upon,” Echeverria said of the talks. “I had really hoped we had more of a consensus.”

The other two bills introduced Monday would:

- Give school boards authority to make across-the-board cuts in teacher salaries, in direct challenge to a 1963 law that prohibits pay cuts for public school teachers. Echeverria said changes were made to soften concerns that a district would reduce a single teacher’s salary in an attempt to force that teacher out.

- Keep school boards from placing teachers on no more than 60 days of unpaid leave if they are under internal investigation by their school district.

The new bills earned praise and criticism from teachers, administrators, parents and school board members during a two-hour public hearing held by the House and Senate education committees. Some of the foes criticized the school boards for bringing back contract statutes that were approved in 2011 as part of the Students Come First overhaul but ultimately repealed at the ballot box last November.

More than 250 people filled the Capitol Auditorium, the second of two forums dedicated to gathering input from the public on education reform legislation, and a hundred more filled seats in committee rooms across the hall to watch the hearing on video screens.

But lawmakers were also urged to consider greater funding for charter schools, classroom sizes and teacher effectiveness.

Several school principals testified that years of budget cuts have led to personnel cuts and a resulting increase in class sizes.

Eagle High School teacher Gail Chumbley said her class sizes have increased since 2008, leaving her with a sense of hopelessness. She encouraged legislators to keep good will and have a sense of common purpose at the forefront when debating education funding this year.

“(Cuts have) prohibited my ability to maintain my standards of excellence,” said Chumbley, who added she plans to retire at the end of the school year. “I can’t do what I know is needed, and I cannot lower my standards in my classes.”

Some who testified urged legislators to give school districts more local control over their finances.

Scott Rogers, superintendent in the Minidoka County School District, said his district has absorbed increasing insurance and utility costs over the last several years. He said a reduction in teaching staff and higher operating costs are increasing class sizes and forcing tough choices on programing.

“I’m no farmer,” he said, “but I do know if you starve a pig, it will die.”

Legislators are currently looking at a complete repeal of the state’s personal business property tax, which helps fund counties, cities and other taxing districts. A second option would be to put in a $100,000 exemption, which would eliminate it for nearly 90 percent of businesses that currently pay it.

The $100,000 exemption became state law in 2008, but with a catch — a trigger of 4 percent growth in state revenues that on the heels of the recession, means it’s never taken effect.

Cassia County Clerk Joe Larsen said Friday that if the entire tax is repealed, the county and other taxing districts within it will lose nearly $2.9 million in funding. Replacing that funding would increase property taxes for residents and small-business owners, unless the Legislature provides an alternative revenue source.

Larsen said the only two property categories to benefit from the repeal of the tax would be commercial and industrial property.

Minidoka County would lose an estimated $800,000 in funding annually, according to figures presented Friday. The city of Burley would lose $191,818 and Rupert would lose $170,000.

If the tax is entirely repealed, the estimated reduction in funding statewide is $140 million, said Bob Moore, Minidoka County commissioner.

“Our legislators only hear us for a small amount of time and then they tune us out,” Moore said.

Larsen said residents and business owners need to contact their legislators and let them know how they feel about the issue.

The officials also calculated what losing the personal property tax would mean for participants in the state’s Property Tax Reduction Program. Known as the “circuit breaker”program, it reduces property taxes for low-income residents who are blind, elderly, widowed, disabled or meet other qualifications.

Changes to levy rates if the business tax had to be replaced would increase what the program’s participants pay by as much as 63 to 97 percent, according to the figures presented Friday.

“Large business will be the only ones to benefit from this. It’s a misconception that mom-and-pop operations will benefit,” Rupert City Administrator Kelly Anthon said.

Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter has proposed setting aside $20 million to help mitigate the loss, said Bob Moore, Minidoka County commissioner.

But, local officials argue, the amount is only a one-time stipend and the loss to the cities and counties will occur annually.

Burley City Administrator Mark Mitton said the repeal of the tax would essentially take away his city’s urban renewal agency’s incentives to bring in new business.

He said personal property tax never comes up when a company is negotiating a deal to come to Burley.

Mitton said some of the companies in the state to benefit most from the repeal are Idaho Power, Union Pacific Railroad, Century Link, Micron and Intermountain Gas.

Bob Dempsay, who is on the Association of Idaho Cities board for the district, said a recent Boise trip left him the impression that “the train had already left the station” in regards to legislators passing some form of the repeal.

Dempsay said repealing the tax will give legislators the opportunity to show their support for big business.

“This has been characterized as a Republican issue but as a conservative Republican this will be devastating to our community,” Anthon said.

Tippets is a public affairs manager for fertilizer producer Agrium. It’s the parent company of Nu-West Industries, which pays the biggest business personal property tax bill in Caribou County. Tippets represents the company on the board of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI), which has championed getting rid of the tax.

Still, Tippets’ view on the issue was clear. More than any other county in Idaho, Caribou County depends on personal property tax revenue. He had to support his constituents.

“My position was that I would not support repeal of the personal property tax if it’s going to negatively impact the services that cities, counties, schools and other local taxing districts are able to provide,” Tippets said.

Agrium went along, even though the company could save more than $600,000 each year if the tax goes away. Another multinational company with a presence in Caribou County, Monsanto,has also come out against a repeal.

Only one other of the state’s top personal property tax payers reached by StateImpact has said it opposes eliminating the tax. That company is utility Avista, which is not an IACI member. Its regional business manager said in a Lewiston Tribune op-ed that the company “does not support the elimination of property taxes at the detriment of communities in Idaho.”

Many of the companies StateImpact contacted have kept their cards closer to the vest. “With our substantial presence in Idaho, Union Pacific would receive a proportionate benefit should the Legislature decide to end the personal property tax,” reads part of an emailed statement from a Union Pacific spokesman.

A Simplot spokesman passed on offering comment. The company is the top personal property tax payer in Power County, which relies heavily on personal property tax revenue.

Anheuser-Busch and ConAgra — parent companies of some of the state’s largest payers — said they are IACI members but have not been active on this issue. Several other companies, including Idaho Milk Products, Glanbia Foods, Inc., and Sorrento Lactalis, Inc., did not return calls.

Only a few top payers we contacted have indicated they favor eliminating the tax. Those are Micron Technology, Idaho Power, and Clearwater Paper Corporation.

“We have a policy from the 1900s being applied to the 21st century,” Micron government affairs spokesman Mike Reynoldson said.

Idaho Power was less direct. “Since there’s no bill at this point, we don’t have anything to say about the issue,” said spokeswoman Stephanie McCurdy in a voice mail message. “I would say talk to IACI, because they speak for the industry on this issue.”

Clearwater Paper spokesman Matt Van Vleet says the company supports the eventual elimination of the tax, but with an eye toward the welfare of local government.

“For us, the tax requires a significant amount of time and resources to process,” he said. Not only is the tax an administrative burden, he said, but it’s unfair. “All of our shipping and receiving equipment, we pay sales tax on that,” he explained. “And then we pay personal property tax on that.”

According to an estimate from the Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy’s Mike Ferguson, Idaho Power could save more than $15 million in personal property tax if the tax goes away. Micron paid well over $3 million in personal property tax in 2011. Clearwater Paper paid more than $2.5 million.

Sen. Tippets says he thinks lawmakers lately have become more cognizant of the purposes those tax dollars serve at the local level.

“I think that the worst-case scenario for taxing entities is probably off the table at this point,” he said. “There was talk early on that the tax could be repealed and there would be no replacement. I don’t hear much talk about that at this point.”

“It’s a possibility and we should take it seriously,” said Sen. Bert Brackett, a Republican rancher from Rogerson. “It’s been talked about a lot.”

Agriculture equipment in Idaho is exempt from the personal property tax, which applies to business machinery, tools, furnishings, equipment and some fixtures and brought in $141 million for local governments in 2012, according to the Idaho State Tax Commission.

The tax accounts for a larger share of revenue in rural areas than in the state’s larger urban areas and ag leaders are concerned that eliminating it could result in the tax burden shifting to agriculture.

Idaho Grain Producers Association Executive Director Travis Jones said the state’s ag community will pay close attention to the debate on personal property tax repeal during the 2013 legislative session.

“Idaho farmers have a lot of money wrapped up in personal property and they want to know if there will be an impact on producers in any way, shape or form,” he said.

The repeal effort is being led by the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, one of the states most powerful lobby groups.

Gov. Butch Otter tackled the issue in his annual state of the state address. He called the tax something “nearly everyone agrees is an unfair drag on our economy” and said he believes there is consensus that accomplishing repeal should be a priority for the legislative session.

But Otter also noted how important the revenue generated by the tax is to local governments and said a plan has to be in place that “considers our counties’ financial stability.” He offered the possibility of granting counties local-option taxing authority.

Idaho farmers are concerned that an increase in local tax rates would result in increased taxes for agriculture. Some rural counties, such as Oneida and Power, are heavily reliant on the personal property tax — both get about 40 percent of their total revenue from it — and they’re also heavily agricultural.

“If they repeal the personal property tax, counties such as Power, which I represent, will lose a considerable amount of tax revenue,” said Sen. Jim Guthrie, a Republican cattle rancher from McCammon. “If they lose that, they will either look to the state or shift the tax to somebody else, which could include agriculture….”

Otter’s proposed fiscal 2014 budget sets aside $20 million for easing counties’ transition should the tax be repealed. But that still leaves a sizable hole that will have to come from somewhere and farmers worry they’ll be a target.

“That’s a big concern we have,” said Dar Olberding, a lobbyist for the wheat industry.

Among other changes, the tax credit bill adds an additional $1,000 credit if the new employee is a veteran; removes a requirement for employer-provided health insurance for the new job to qualify for the credit; changes the amounts and wage levels; and removes ties to the employer’s rating with the state Department of Labor for use of the unemployment insurance program.

Rev & Tax members had lots of questions; the Otter Administration responded by bringing in extensive financial information about the credit, including detailed charts. “We had some good, positive testimony,” said Rep. Gary Collins, R-Nampa, Rev & Tax chairman.

Gov. Butch Otter and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna both allocated in their education budgets $34 million to pay for task force recommendations.

Meeting with reporters Friday morning, Otter said his budget has no Plan B for the $34 million — and he indicated that the money could now be up for grabs.

“Outside the task force, we have a lot of recommendations for what to do with the $34 million,” Otter said at an Idaho Press Club forum.

Luna said the money should stay in education, but there is “no meat on the bones of a Plan B” yet.

Sen. John Goedde, R-Coeur d’Alene, a member of the task force and chair of the Senate Education Committee, said he hopes the money is kept in the education budget and assigned to one-time expenditures so it can be given back to the task force in 2014.

“We can use the money for additional professional development or hardware,” he said. “That’s my hope.”

Rep. Reed DeMordaunt, R-Eagle, a member of the task force and chair of the House Education Committee, agreed that the money should stay in education and that task force members have brought up good ideas to consider, such as professional development for Common Core implementation.

“I’m only one vote but that’s what I’m going to fight for,” DeMordaunt said of keeping the money in education.

The Legislature ultimately has the responsibility of spending that money with options that include giving it to K-12, putting it into an education savings account or directing it to another agency.

Education Task Force Chairman Richard Westerberg said the group will get public input from around the state before making recommendations, and that will take months. The plan is to set up public hearings and an electronic bulletin board.

The 31-member task force met all day Friday on the Boise State University campus. The members split into five focus groups — professional development, teacher effectiveness, fiscal stability, technology and structure. The groups meet most of the day and developed ideas from their topics. Those ideas were shared and vetted with the whole group. (Highlights of those ideas are at the bottom of this report and will be posted in full next week on the State Board website).

The task force will meet again on March 15 to discuss the ideas developed on Friday. Anyone and everyone will have the opportunity to offer feedback and that feedback will be considered with the full task force later this year, Westerberg said.

The task force began its Friday meeting by listening to presentations about preparing teachers in Idaho Common Core State Standards from Jennifer Snow (Boise State University) and Paula Kellerer (Northwest Nazarene University). Also presenting was Allison Henken of the State Board of Education, speaking on successful teacher preparation models, and the State Department of Education’s Nick Smith about professional development plans around Common Core.

Highlights of ideas developed by the task force:

Professional development — The  No. 1 priority is the Common Core, Smarter Balance and technology.

Teacher effectiveness — Should be changed to teacher and administrator effectiveness. This includes increasing mentoring and creating effective evaluation. With that comes accountability, and increasing the amount of training and use of tools in practice.

Fiscal stability — The priority is identifying a funding model that follows the student, but the focus of funding should be on student membership, not attendance. Another goal: gaining consistency with the salary model.

Technology —First, identify what Idaho needs. Make sure every student has access to any course he or she wants to take. Review what resources exist and identify what’s needed.

Structure — Decisions should be made as close to the student as possible. Unleash capacity at the local level. Identify the skills students must have to be successful. Create an accountability system, and with that comes consequences.

Members of the task force: