Note: This year IFF rated maintenance bills according to a more refined system. This is an enhancement bill, and will be rated as a standalone bill. IFF will only consider enhancement line items in these ratings. This means that FTP reductions passed in maintenance legislation will not be evaluated here, among other things.
Bill Description: House Bill 906 is an enhancement of $1,368,700 and 0.00 new full-time positions for Community Colleges for fiscal year 2027. This legislation appropriates a total of $68,169,300 and 80.42 full-time positions to the agency.
Rating: -1
Is the continuation or growth in ongoing spending, if any, inappropriate for the changes in circumstances, scope of the agency, or current economic environment? Conversely, is the continuation or growth in ongoing spending appropriate given any change in circumstances or economic pressures?
This legislation authorizes an ongoing spending enhancement for Community Colleges of -$245,500, a reduction from last year’s (FY26) ongoing spending increase of $1,679,800. FY26’s ongoing spending is wrapped into FY27’s base increase, making ongoing spending especially important to scrutinize. Volatility in these increases (or decreases) is to be expected, and makes discernment on the propriety of new spending imperative.
However, the decrease in ongoing spending is due to changes in the way the Canvas LMS contract is accounted for ($245,500 GF). The Canvas contract has been moved under the OSBE.
(0)
Does this budget incur any wasteful spending among discretionary funds, including new line items? Conversely, does this budget contain any provisions that serve to reduce spending where possible (i.e. base reductions, debt reconciliation, etc.)?
This legislation authorizes onetime spending for Community Colleges of $1,368,700. Last year’s budget (FY26) had no onetime expenditures. Onetime spending is often even more volatile than ongoing spending, which is to be expected due to these onetime expenses generally being utilized for projects or capital outlay. This also calls for special scrutiny and discernment.
The onetime expenditure solely consists of a restoration of the JFAC 2% additional reduction ($1,368,700 GF). This represents an unwarranted expenditure, especially so in a deficit year. Further, almost all agencies faced the additional 2% JFAC holdback, and agencies asking for exemptions or restorations do a disservice to agencies who accepted the entire 5% holdback.
(-1)
