Appropriations & Finance adopts LFC public school support budget after debate over formula, meals and Indian education funding

The Appropriations & Finance committee adopted the Legislative Finance Committee(LFC) recommendation for the public school support budget during its meeting after a motion by Vice Chair Dixon and a second from Representative Silva; no opposition was recorded.

Committee members and agency staff focused debate on several recurring differences among the executive, LFC and Legislative Education Study Committee (LESC) proposals, including proposed formula changes (the at-risk/family income index and a standalone English learner factor), proposed increases to secondary membership unit values, funding for universal school meals, and nonrecurring increases for the Indian Education Fund.

The vote comes after agency presenters and staff summarized the main contrasts. "For recurring, the executive provided 50,700,000.0, which is in line with current cost projections. The LFC is at 42,200,000.0 for recurring," said Andrew Miner, who identified himself as filling in for K‑12 education in the executive branch. Miner added that the executive recommended a $5,000,000 nonrecurring appropriation to cover potential cost overruns for the universal meals initiative.

Director Sena described areas of agreement and difference across the recommendations, saying the working group and LESC "agreed on swapping out the way that we determine at risk in our funding formula and replace that mechanism, the family income index," and on creating "a standalone English learner factor." Sena said the major remaining divergence was the size of the recurring increase for secondary students, which the LESC recommendation would generate as substantially more funding for sixth through 12th grades.

Madam Secretary for the Public Education Department emphasized meal cost trends and the potential impact on districts: "We've seen so far as of February a 14% increase in our claims from our school districts and charter schools for meals," she told the committee, noting that the executive recommendation increases recurring meals funding more than the LFC recommendation.

Committee members pressed staff on several program lines and policy impacts. Representative Silva asked whether the sixth‑grade membership factor would be phased in; staff said the working group would consider incremental options. Representative Luhan and others flagged the New Mexico Grown line (the executive recommended $2,300,000 for that program, which LFC did not include) and asked staff to "flag that line in the budget" for further attention. Representative Baca and others sought more regular interim discussions on budget projections and protections.

Staff summarized major numeric differences cited in the meeting: the executive proposed $50.7 million recurring for universal school meals vs. LFC's $42.2 million recurring, a $5.0 million executive nonrecurring contingency, a proposed $90.0 million nonrecurring, three‑year appropriation for the Indian Education Fund in the executive recommendation versus the LFCproposal of roughly $15.5 million over three years, and differences in educator compensation scenarios (LESC proposed a 3% across‑the‑board increase; LFC recommended 4% in its package). Staff also said the overall package being discussed totaled about $132 million for proposed changes, with the difference between major proposals around $76 million.

Several lawmakers described programmatic priorities. Representative Garrett and others stressed attention to salary minimums for educators and support staff; representatives raised the tension between above‑the‑line formula funding (discretionary dollars routed through the State Equalization Guarantee) and below‑the‑line targeted line items (pilot programs, CTE start‑up, innovation zones and tutoring) where the legislature can set performance measures and guardrails.

After discussion the committee moved and adopted the LFC recommendation for both the recurring and nonrecurring portions of the public school support budget, with committee leadership noting the matter will return for further work in a designated work group to reconcile remaining differences and line‑level details.

Looking ahead, staff told the committee the work group will examine incremental approaches to membership factor changes, guardrails and evaluation plans for three‑year pilots funded through the GROW or Public Education Reform funds, and monitoring for universal meals cost trends.

Ending: The committeeadopted the LFC package on the record; members directed follow‑up work in a session and asked staff and the agencies to supply more line‑level details for the working group.