[{"_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",5984875,"mediaKeyId","5766166-b05a35826933082dfbb87d7cc9e73fa0","parentId",5766166,"title","Board debates voted local levy overhaul; members approve disclosure amendment, postpone substantive changes to finance committee","audioSeconds",3446,"startMs",1231000,"endMs",4677000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5766166-b05a35826933082dfbb87d7cc9e73fa0&start=1231&end=4677","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5766166-b05a35826933082dfbb87d7cc9e73fa0/thumbnail_1231000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5984875/Utah/Board-debates-voted-local-levy-overhaul-members-approve-disclosure-amendment-postpone-substantive-changes-to-finance-committee","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5984875-c2ab8687036b25de5593393ddf1b5a07/orig.mp4?Expires=1773579427&Signature=S8GfLRL~AtRdUCBEetqvmz91ViGx1HLzIhzsMO2l5vUX32XIM0ctZ11YMRU8kzkUHFo1eM8HmtSN1iN~-~Ap9QMY~JuKjQOZWUjPQQYgIzSP92dCzM2P1nzhyhttCxau7RiBLNYd-c~pqzRO02sgQcRqRIiJ-iqRRmbLBLxUf1nEAuH-3HBdQjRUVTM0elmx3OBnPtGGINl41qZ6sC8PLlMJJ72I0nvFjC9TeT1ziUttqQJN-kGNlDXpiXvL~Xft1w3Y0VQDXcFgb4zMrkurxlIudVjVsg-5~~n0-fyE2TCjkF811OgRnXHwx41nYTf9WX7jPW~Z86WGEx7xXCvQtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Financial Operations","date","2025-09-15T16:24:00Z","article","The Utah State Board of Education spent the largest portion of its Oct. 5 legislative-prep discussion on a proposed statutory package for the voted and board local levy. Member Earl moved a multi-part proposal to: reduce the guarantee from 20 to 15 increments; cap the amount of state funds appropriated to the guarantee program and reallocate state savings to the at‑risk Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU) add‑on; require Truth in Taxation hearings to occur on or before the date the money is budgeted; and require full disclosure of LEA monetary investment funds, savings accounts and the Public Treasury Investment Fund (PTIF), including an itemized accounting.

The proposal drew extended committee-level conversation about winners and losers under any formula change. Dale Frost, the Minimum School Program administrator, and other staff presented scenario spreadsheets showing five‑year impacts by LEA; Frost said the statewide net impact could be budget neutral but individual LEAs could see significant gains or losses depending on property wealth, WPUs and valuations. \"What any formula change in this program would do is reallocate funding amongst the districts,\" Frost said during the discussion.

Board members debated multiple amendments. One amendment to the Truth in Taxation language (adding \"on or before\") failed on a roll call. Another amendment to add a fourth bullet requiring full disclosure of monetary investment funds, savings accounts and the PTIF and an itemized accounting passed (the amendment passed with 13 votes in favor and two abstentions noted in the record). That disclosure language was adopted as an amendment to the maker’s motion.

After extended debate — which included concerns about survey outreach to LEAs, the timing of assessor data used for budgets, complex formula impacts, and whether reallocated state savings should be directed to the at‑risk add‑on — Member Davis moved to postpone the motion and refer it to the board’s finance committee for deeper technical review. Member Lear and Member Booth seconded the postponement; the board voted 12–3 to postpone to finance committee (the three opposing votes were Member Boggess, Chair Heimas and Member Carrie).

Board members who supported postponement said the proposal requires more technical analysis of formulas, dates, and statutory interactions before staff or legislative partners begin drafting code changes. Members who opposed postponement argued that the motion was intended as an initial direction to staff so they could prepare draft code language and impact scenarios that would return to the board for further action.

The substantive levy proposal was not advanced to the legislature at the meeting; the board approved the disclosure amendment and formally moved the remainder to the finance committee for further study and potential revision before any staff-legislator engagement.

Key clarifications captured during debate: staff noted the proposal would be forward-looking if adopted and not retroactive; assessor and certification timelines constrain when districts receive valuation data used for budgeting; and any change reallocates funding across districts, creating winners and losers. The board asked staff to prepare additional technical analyses for the finance committee.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025 09 11 | 19. 2026 General Legislative Session Preparation Pt 1 | USBE","oneSentenceSummary","Board member Earl proposed code changes to the voted and board local levy—including reducing the guarantee from 20 to 15 increments and redirecting any state savings to the at‑risk WPU add‑on—but the board postponed the package to the finance committee and only approved an amendment requiring itemized public disclosure of LEA investment funds including the PTIF.","taxTitle","Financial Operations , Utah Board of Education, Offices, Departments, and Divisions, Organizations, Utah Executive Branch, Utah","taxId",67095,"location","Utah","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},5984885,"State board directs staff to seek code changes for students absent 10 days; staff to propose welfare-check referral language",767,69000,836000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5766166-b05a35826933082dfbb87d7cc9e73fa0&start=69&end=836","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5766166-b05a35826933082dfbb87d7cc9e73fa0/thumbnail_69000.jpg","/articles/5984885/Utah/State-board-directs-staff-to-seek-code-changes-for-students-absent-10-days-staff-to-propose-welfare-check-referral-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5984885-60dd63b1b056a55ee14889a4c3f603e0/orig.mp4?Expires=1773579427&Signature=Okq2flh0fjdSNpA~1pj5zbkACTeo6dXjz0KdHUDajEnjQ60vXegoS2wyv0mStqzgG56K-S3xK08f5~W7qKvr9l-GBjKaviFHIG8dhLECfQIkq3XmUlaK6zy4eIJpGgKLAAnm~kBdR-3B6e~OBqarsMyNxauI~4-PoXDwC56BScOxdPPlpcr9lKLE9rUjs3X1ebHVMf81cYoYWMeQXh3W5dZS1xDHeRdAPU6vDJc7yen-US5z~eWbaZ56c~jJJDuKJpwQ~wMHPPkk7tovZShZxazGE5kdoumaKBnbs9hqGvZ-3YmlUgpuF6w6vG22A9FpAJf5Ud8q~YR9xSAV1EMQNQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utah State Board of Education on Oct. 5 directed staff to work with legislators on code changes aimed at students absent 10 or more consecutive school days when schools lack evidence the child was disenrolled or recorded elsewhere. The board’s motion requires several conditions be met before staff proposes a statutory referral for a welfare check to the appropriate local or state agency. Member Boggess moved the measure, which the board approved unanimously.

Board members said the measure is intended to address a data gap the board uncovered. \"In the last part it would say that they would work to, amend the appropriate code lines that a referral shall be made from the LEA to whatever agency is determined to be the appropriate agency to conduct a child welfare check,\" Member Boggess said as she outlined the motion. She cited a board data request from last November showing about 2,700 students flagged under the board’s 10-day policy, and said only a small share — \"4.2%\" as stated in the meeting — were later found to have reenrolled in another local education agency (LEA).

The motion lists the conditions under which a 10-day absence would trigger legislative changes: parents have failed to notify the school of disenrollment; no homeschool affidavit or initial notification (letter of intent) is on file; no notice of unenrollment was sent to the school; parents failed to respond to school contact attempts (email, phone, text); and there is no request for records or record of enrollment in another Utah LEA. If those conditions are met, staff were asked to propose code language that would require a referral for a welfare check to the appropriate agency — ranging from the Division of Child and Family Services in some communities to local sheriff or police departments in more remote areas, as Member Boggess noted.

Board members and staff clarified that the board is not seeking to restrict parents’ civil rights to homeschool; the motion preserves a parent’s right to file a homeschool affidavit or initial homeschool notification. Vice Chair Bollinger asked whether the change in law last session to replace a homeschool affidavit with a one-time letter of intent (HB 209 was referenced during the discussion) affects the language; board members agreed staff will reconcile statutory terms and return with precise code language.

Staff will return proposed statutory language for the board’s review. The board did not adopt final code text at the meeting; the directive was to draft language for later consideration.

The board’s discussion repeatedly separated discussion from formal action: members debated the policy rationale and statutory phrasing before voting; the only formal outcome at the meeting was the directive to staff to draft statutory amendments and work with legislators.

The board’s motion carried unanimously.","The Utah State Board of Education on Oct. 5 directed staff to work with legislators on statutory changes to address students absent 10 or more consecutive school days when schools have no record of disenrollment, homeschool notice or re-enrollment elsewhere, and to propose referral language for welfare checks.",{"_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},5984880,"Board asks staff to seek a voting USBE seat on Utah System of Higher Education board",306,910000,1216000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5766166-b05a35826933082dfbb87d7cc9e73fa0&start=910&end=1216","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5766166-b05a35826933082dfbb87d7cc9e73fa0/thumbnail_910000.jpg","/articles/5984880/Utah/Board-asks-staff-to-seek-a-voting-USBE-seat-on-Utah-System-of-Higher-Education-board","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5984880-746338f90f06fc2371f592401f6f8ba1/orig.mp4?Expires=1773579427&Signature=MfoSkCJK6vJg9kXNcovX6Mt6wPWwEyipXbD4K4ytc1WSX3-5bDuxAOTV~ZusYlbb~67BiSCWRQgDzZsvLWSRQkbAL8iRrm~fRTtEbhebP9rik58AbYnHKTcbxFRVjmjOhqFECEpKlMF3lyf6t3lT5DBx53yEiMiBrxVD0mWiKPtey8uJh9vlmebNAyu80cu3rUara-PZIFre8W~zXcGFsB4EragCwKk7dkXgxnIPWnQE~nNY8CAva0gtdk-rq4RFtZ9Fl3rC6FtZGlRM5MVuswyxkS0yKRtA72vuW~RWow1VcCuwwLwtqnWuBwTuZwNpoplmKW2BMyMswASO~n0Egw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utah State Board of Education voted unanimously to direct staff to work with legislators on potential Utah code amendments to include a State Board of Education member as a voting member of the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE) board.

Member Carrie moved the measure, saying teacher-educator programs administered by USHE increasingly intersect with K–12 responsibilities and that a voting seat would give the State Board a formal voice when higher-education policy affects credentialing and educator preparation. \"There is a big difference between having a seat and being a voting member of a body,\" Carrie said, describing past experience as a nonvoting member on a charter school board.

Board members noted prior arrangements in which nonvoting USHE representatives sat on this board; Member Davis said representatives from USHE used to serve as nonvoting members on the State Board and that a voting seat could streamline communication on issues such as regent scholarships and program approvals.

Staff were directed to work with legislative partners to draft potential statutory language; the board did not approve final code text at the meeting.

The motion passed unanimously. The board’s action is a directive to staff to develop proposed code language for later board review and possible legislative introduction.","The Utah State Board of Education voted unanimously to direct staff to work with legislators on amending Utah code to include a State Board of Education member as a voting member of the Utah System of Higher Education board (USHE).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board debates voted local levy overhaul; members approve disclosure amendment, postpone substantive changes to finance committee

State board directs staff to seek code changes for students absent 10 days; staff to propose welfare-check referral language

Board asks staff to seek a voting USBE seat on Utah System of Higher Education board