Conference committee weighs education funding changes, property-tax classifications and study requirements

A conference committee considering changes to education funding and property taxes discussed adding new property‑tax classifications and attaching stronger study requirements before major components take effect.

Committee members said the package aims to give the state tools to tax different property types (for example, single‑family homes, rental apartments, businesses and farms) in a more nuanced way and to protect homeowners and other taxpayers from sudden shifts. Members agreed the changes would require substantial administrative work by the tax department and a long timeline before any new classification or rate could be implemented.

The meeting focused on three linked issues: how to structure a statutory process and timeline for new property classifications, how to account for career and technical education (CTE) costs in the funding model, and how to handle independent schools and mixed‑use properties during a transition. Committee members repeatedly emphasized that they would accept language that makes key actions contingent on a definitive study and on the tax department completing necessary definitions and counts.

On timing and administration, members said the tax department must be given time to define classifications, count affected properties and run revenue estimates before any rates or classifications become effective. One committee member noted previous requests to the tax department for similar studies had not produced “very satisfactory studies,” and the group urged more detailed analysis to avoid unexpected outcomes. The committee discussed starting foundational changes in fiscal year 2029 to provide time for definitions, counting and any subsequent rate-setting.

Regarding career and technical education, members said policy design should come before funding changes. The committee discussed covering CTE costs within the proposed system and exploring options to do so without increasing total system spending; members described that work as a longer, programmatic effort for future legislatures if needed.

On independent schools, the committee discussed a proposal allowing independent schools to continue charging tuition during the transition. Some members said independent schools are part of the broader education system and provide services in areas where other options do not exist; other members voiced concern about exempting a sector from the broader funding changes without further vetting. A proposal to let independent schools continue to charge tuition was left to “sit for the moment,” with no formal action recorded.

The committee also raised the question of mixed‑use properties (for example, a store with an apartment above), noting that existing law already provides mechanisms for properties that are both homestead and non‑homestead. Members suggested the mixed‑use issue is solvable administratively but said it requires clearer definitions to be set in statute or made contingent on further study.

No formal motions or votes were recorded during the portion of the meeting covering these topics. Committee members asked staff to draft contingent language to make studies and administrative steps explicit and “forcible,” and they requested that staff engage the tax department to produce clearer definitions and revenue estimates. The group agreed to continue working on compromise language that would keep the package from taking effect until required studies and administrative work are completed.

Next steps included committee staff preparing draft contingent statutory language and seeking follow‑up analysis from the tax department; the committee did not set a formal vote or effective date during the discussion recorded in the transcript.