Concerning adjustments to school funding for the 2025-26 budget year, and, in connection therewith, reducing an appropriation.
Summary
HB26-1174 makes midyear adjustments to Colorado’s school finance calculations for the 2025-26 budget year. The bill updates the state’s total program funding target downward to reflect lower-than-expected funded pupil and at-risk pupil counts, while also recognizing higher-than-anticipated local property tax and specific ownership tax revenue. In combination, those changes reduce the state share of district total program funding by $103,472,508 for the budget year.
The bill also clarifies how a district’s total program is calculated when the “new formula” produces a lower amount than the “old formula.” In that situation, the bill specifies that the district’s total program is the greater of the prior year’s total program or the amount calculated under the old formula, rather than blending the two formulas. This is a technical but important change for districts whose new-formula calculation would otherwise be lower than the old-formula result.
In addition to changing the funding formula language, the bill amends the Department of Education’s appropriation for public school finance and related items. It reduces the state share of district total program funding and lowers the overall education appropriation, while also adjusting related line items such as extended high school funding, at-risk per-pupil additional funding, and the contingency reserve fund. The bill preserves the use of State Education Fund, State Public School Fund, and other designated revenue sources for these purposes.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s status is pragmatic and budget-focused rather than controversial. It was enacted as an appropriations measure and signed by the Governor, suggesting broad acceptance of the need to reconcile school finance appropriations with updated enrollment and revenue data. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no evidence in the available record of organized opposition or debate.
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is fiscal: it shifts more of the total program burden away from the state and onto local revenue sources because actual local collections came in higher than expected. Any concern would likely center on the reduced state contribution and the technical treatment of districts whose new-formula funding is lower than the old formula, but the available materials do not show active dispute over those changes.
Impact
The bill amends Colorado school finance statutes, primarily sections 22-54-103.5 and 22-54-103.3, to revise the 2025-26 total program funding calculation and clarify the fallback rule when the new formula yields less than the old formula. It also changes the Department of Education’s FY 2025-26 appropriation in the annual budget bill, reducing the state share of district total program funding and adjusting related education appropriations. The practical effect is a lower state general fund/state education fund commitment to K-12 school finance for that budget year, with districts relying more on local property tax and specific ownership tax revenue.
Sentiment
The available record suggests a largely neutral-to-supportive sentiment. The bill is framed as a technical budget correction based on updated pupil counts and revenue estimates, and it was ultimately signed by the Governor. With no committee transcripts or vote breakdowns provided, there is no indication of significant public conflict in the record supplied. The overall tone is that of routine fiscal adjustment rather than policy overhaul.
Contention
The main substantive issue is the reduction in the state share of school funding, which follows from lower enrollment counts and higher local revenue collections. That shift may concern districts or advocates worried about state support levels, especially because the bill lowers the appropriation and changes the formula treatment for districts where the new calculation is below the old one. The bill’s clarification that such districts revert to the old formula amount, rather than a blended amount, could also matter to districts affected by the calculation change. However, no specific opposing arguments, named stakeholders, or recorded votes are available in the provided materials.