1D1F7EC1145AA06C8725873B00546FAA Hearing Summary CLICS/CLICS2021A/commsumm.nsf PUBLICBILL SUMMARY For OVERVIEW OF SCHOOL FINANCE IN COLORADOINTERIM COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE INTERIM COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL FINANCEDate Aug 24, 2021 Location SCR 357 Overview of School Finance in Colorado - Committee Discussion Only 09:22:20 AM Brita Darling and Julie Pelegrin, Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS), and Marc Carey, Legislative Council Staff (LCS), introduced themselves and began their presentation regarding the school funding formula. The presentation was sent to members of the committee and can be accessed here: http://leg.colorado.gov/content/isfinance2021acommdocs 09:22:21 AM Ms. Darling reviewed the formula for calculating funding which is based on factors such as school district characteristics, including statewide base funding, personnel costs, cost of living, nonpersonnel costs, and the size of the district. The panelists responded to questions from the committee. 09:42:29 AM Ms. Darling continued her presentation and described funding based on student characteristics. Committee members discussed previous efforts to shape the School Finance Funding Formula. Brita Darling continued her presentation by describing additional aspects of the funding formula such as the funded per pupil count, district total program, and the budget stabilization factor (BSF). Ms. Darling explained that the BSF is a percentage reduction in each school district's total program funding that is calculated after the base per-pupil funding amount is increased and other district-specific adjustments are calculated. Ms. Darling then provided a summary of the 2021-22 school finance formula funding. 09:57:11 AM Dr. Carey continued the presentation by explaining that school funding primarily comes from state and local shares, which equaled approximately $8.0 billion in FY 21-22. He shared that state and local shares can vary significantly by district and funding can look difference once the BSF is applied. Dr. Carey explained that revenue sources can include mill levy overrides, binding, fundraising, grants, categorical funding from the state, state funds from sources such as the READ Act, and federal revenue. Dr. Carey responded to questions from the committee regarding state and local funding sources, mill levies, and forms of revenue. 09:58:12 AM Dr. Carey explained that local shares have generally decreased over time, as the state share has increased in an attempt to offset those decreases because of three constitutional factors: the passage of the Gallagher Amendment in 1982; the passage of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) in 1992, and the passage of Amendment 23 in 2000. Both the Gallagher Amendment and TABOR have put downward pressure on local property tax revenue. The passage of Amendment 23 has driven increases in total program funding based on inflation and enrollment growth. 10:21:13 AM Julie Pelgrin continued the presentation by explaining that after the passage of Tabor in 1994, most districts waived the TABOR revenue limit, but still reduced their mill levies. In 2007, the General Assembly amended statute to clairfy that districts only needed to reduce their mill levies to stay within the TABOR revenue limit if they were subject to the limit. The General Assemly also amended statute to cap mill levies at 27 mills. House Bill 20-1418 and House Bill 21-1164 then reset the mill levies for districts subject and not subject to the TABOR limit. The presenters responded to questions from the committee regarding mill levy overrides, provisions in HB 20-1418 and HB 21-1164, and mill levy resets that may take place without voter approval.