Joint Fiscal Office data show proposed school spending cap would constrain many districts; committee seeks FY27 budgets before voting
Loading...
Summary
The Joint Fiscal Office presented district‑level spreadsheets showing how S.220's allowable‑growth formula and a 'dual test' (3% floor, statute factor peaking at 9%) would produce caps that some districts might have to cut to meet. Committee members asked for FY27 voted budgets and more district‑specific analysis before taking action.
The committee received a data briefing on S.220, a bill that would create a statutory cap on school district education spending using an "allowable growth" formula and a complementary inflation test.
Julia Richter of the Joint Fiscal Office walked the committee through spreadsheets comparing FY25 and FY26 education spending, long‑term weighted average daily membership (ADM), and weighted per‑pupil spending. Richter explained how S.220's formula would calculate an allowable growth percentage by comparing each district's per‑pupil spending against the highest per‑pupil spending district, applying the statutory factor and a floor. "Everybody gets at least 3% of allowable growth percentage," she said, noting the draft shows a 9% upper factor and a 3% minimum floor.
Richter described a proposed "dual test" that would set each district's cap at whichever is higher: the allowable per‑pupil spending calculated from the formula, or the prior year's spending increased by inflation (NIPA). She showed a backcast for FY26 comparing what districts would have been capped at under the formula versus what they actually spent; the example cited was Arlington, which would have needed to reduce spending by about $306,908 to fall under the cap in the backcast model.
Committee members pressed for updated inputs. Several members said the FY26 backcast is useful but asked the office to run the same analysis using FY27 voted budgets (when available) so the committee would not "vote in the dark." Richter said she can update the model once districts submit their FY27 budgets, which most agencies expect to have in March.
The briefing also covered how sending/receiving tuition calculations would interact with the cap. JFO staff explained that announced tuition is set by receiving schools and then included as a budget line in sending districts; if tuition increases exceed a district's allowable cap, those districts would face pressure to reallocate or cut other budget lines.
Jake Feldman (tax department) presented a high‑level, multi‑year projection intended to frame long‑term options: without changes, he said property taxes could continue to rise about 7% per year given recent education fund spending trends, making caps or the forthcoming foundation formula tools to "bend the curve."
Next steps: staff will update the model with FY27 voted budgets and provide more district‑level breakdowns requested by committee members; the committee did not vote on S.220 at this session.
