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.