Appropriations committee amends K–12 budget striker, restores some running start and school bus provisions

The Appropriations Committee reported engrossed substitute Senate Bill 6260 as amended after a substantive amendment briefing and a sequence of roll‑call and voice votes on dozens of proposed changes.

Staff to the committee summarized the striking amendment (H-3-817.1) as containing a package of K–12 savings affecting running start maximum enrollment, local effort assistance, bus depreciation schedules and TTK (transition to kindergarten) prioritization. Staff said the underlying bill produced large reductions in FY27 (cited figures included roughly $71.3 million in FY27 reductions and $256.2 million over a multi‑year outlook) and that select amendments would alter the timing and magnitude of those savings.

Members debated many offered amendments. Representative Couture successfully urged votes to maintain some programs, including multiple attempts to restore running start funding and to undo proposed bus depreciation reductions. Representative Dolio offered an amendment (MAC 447) that the committee adopted; it limited some depreciation reductions and applied them to zero‑emission buses, a change members described as spreading costs across districts. Representative Couture repeatedly argued to restore transition‑to‑kindergarten (TTK) funding and running start slots, citing research on early learning and the long‑term benefits of running start for college and workforce outcomes.

Several amendments that would have rolled back striker changes to bus depreciation or TTK funding were proposed and in multiple cases defeated; others were withdrawn by sponsors. During final passage the committee recorded a roll call with Mister Fouts announcing 17 ayes, 12 nays and 2 excused, and the engrossed substitute SB 6260 as amended was reported out with a due‑pass recommendation.

Lawmakers framed the debate around tradeoffs between maintaining investments in early learning and career‑pathway programs and meeting short‑term fiscal constraints; members opposing the striker warned the cuts would disproportionately affect rural and high‑need districts and reduce supports for early learners, while supporters described the package as targeted reductions aimed at fiscal sustainability.