Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears HB 265 to let districts apply full inflationary increases to previously voted overbase budgets
Summary
Sponsor Luke Miskiewicz told the committee HB 265 would allow school districts that previously adopted an overbase (voted levy) to apply the legislature’s inflationary adjustment to that overbase without holding a new election; proponents cited inflation pressures and the growing 95‑mills revenue as ways to offset local property tax impacts, while opponents warned about removing voter approval.
Representative Luke Miskiewicz opened the hearing on House Bill 265, saying Montana law currently provides an inflationary adjustment to school budgets but districts that have adopted a 'max' budget receive only 80% of that adjustment unless they hold a subsequent voted levy. HB 265 would allow districts that have already adopted an overbase budget to have the full inflationary increase apply to their overbase without conducting another election. The sponsor offered an amendment that would use growth in revenue from the 95‑mills (SEPTA) account to reduce or eliminate the local property tax burden caused by the change.
Lance Melton of the Montana School Boards Association testified in support, calling the bill ‘‘reconciling the pipes’’ of the funding formula and arguing that without a fix districts would repeatedly have to ask voters for levies to capture the legislature’s intended increases. Melton and the sponsor disputed certain fiscal‑note assumptions, saying the fiscal note assumed districts would stop running levies entirely; using historical levy behavior, they said the actual net fiscal impact could be much smaller. Opponent Bob Story (Montana Taxpayers Association) argued the overbase was intentionally voter‑approved local authority and that post‑hoc statutory changes before the decennial study risk locking in unsustainable new bases.
Paul Taylor (Office of Public Instruction) provided a stacked‑bar explanation of how state, non‑levy and property tax revenues fund base and overbase budgets and confirmed the amendment would change a previously voted area into a permissive incremental increase triggered by legislative inflation. Committee members pressed witnesses about the fiscal note (which estimated $5.4 million in FY26 and $11.2 million in FY27 in one scenario), how the 95‑mills account growth might offset costs, and whether the statutory inflation calculation can fall; witnesses described the 3‑year CPI averaging method and how present law acts as a floor. The sponsor closed by reiterating the bill applies only to districts that previously adopted an overbase and argued that failing to act imposes costs through continued elections. The committee closed the hearing on HB 265 without taking a final vote.
