Joint Budget Committee deadlocks 3-3 on pausing new K–12 funding formula trigger

The Joint Budget Committee debated and voted on whether to declare that a statutory financial "trigger" had been met that would pause the state's new K–12 funding formula (House Bill 1448). After extended legal explanation and discussion, a motion to determine the trigger had been met failed on a 3'to'3 vote.

The committee considered the statutory language that requires notification of legislative leaders and education officials if the trigger conditions are met and the resulting effect that the total program would be calculated under the old formula rather than the new formula. Ms. Ewell, a staff member who reviewed the legislation for the committee, summarized the notification requirements and the effect on total program calculations.

Members pressed staff and counsel about how the committee should cast a motion and whether a tied vote can be treated as a determination. Ms. Ewell told the committee that the statute requires the Joint Budget Committee to make an affirmative determination; a 3'3 tie does not constitute that affirmative finding. Secretary Kumar and other members said they expected to vote that the trigger had been tripped based on staff's legal advice and revenue changes; other members emphasized the statute's intended policy context and expressed concern about overriding the law'makers' intent.

Madam Vice Chair moved that "the committee determined that the trigger, as described in House Bill 1448, has been met." The motion failed on a vote of 3 to 3. Committee minutes record that Bridges, Taggart and Sarita objected to the motion; the committee announced the motion failed without naming the three members who voted in favor.

Because the trigger was not found to be met, staff recommended and the committee adopted long'bill assumptions that reflect implementation of the new formula as current law for purposes of the FY 2025'26 figure setting. That recommendation included staff's table showing a recommended $150,000,000 general fund increase for the state share under the assumption that the formula will operate as currently written; staff said the table also showed fund-source scenarios and that the formula pause scenario had been computed but was not applicable given the committee's vote.

The committee's discussion also highlighted uncertainty about a separate, evolving component of the School Finance Act called the smoothing factor and asked legislative staff to continue modeling multiple multi'year scenarios. Several members emphasized that the School Finance Act itself remains subject to further change during the session and that the committee's vote addressed only the limited statutory trigger question, not the merits of the new formula.

Looking ahead, staff told the committee it had prepared two side'by'side tables (trigger met vs. trigger not met) and recommended inserting the nontrigger scenario numbers into the long bill only if members changed the trigger determination. The committee followed staff's recommendation to adopt the figures that assume the new funding formula goes into effect.

Votes and next steps: the motion to find the trigger met failed 3'3. Staff will keep working on multi'year sustainability models and on adjustments in the School Finance Act as the legislature continues deliberations.