|
PUBLIC
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING
INTERIM COMMITTEE OVERRIDE MILL LEVY MATCH WORKING GROUP
| Date |
09/24/2024 |
| Attendance |
| Jeremy Burmeister |
X |
| Brandon Comfort |
X |
| Aaron Dobson |
X |
| Brett Johnson |
X |
| Brett Ridgway |
X |
| Jana Schneider |
X |
| Ashley Stephen |
X |
| Lundeen |
X |
| Martinez |
X |
|
| Time |
09:11:50 AM to 11:09:54 AM |
| Place |
SCR 352 |
| This Meeting was called to order by |
Martinez |
| This Report was prepared by |
Rachel Kurtz-Phelan |
|
| Hearing Items |
Action Taken |
| hOpening Remarks and Overview of Committee Charge |
Committee Discussion Only |
| hBoard Member Introductions |
Committee Discussion Only |
| hPresentation on the Mill Levy Override (MLO) Match Program |
Committee Discussion Only |
| hCommittee Discussion on Goals and Next Steps |
Committee Discussion Only |
| hSchool District Perspective on the MLO Match Program |
Committee Discussion Only |
| hPublic Testimony |
Committee Discussion Only |
|
|
Opening Remarks and Overview of Committee Charge - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
09:12:50 AM |
Chair Martinez called
the meeting to order. Anna Gerstle, Legislative Council Staff (LCS), provided
an overview of the working group's charge (Attachment A). She introduced
staff from LCS and the Office of Legislative Legal Services.
|
Board Member Introductions - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
09:16:01 AM |
The working group
members took turns introducing themselves.
|
Presentation on the Mill Levy Override (MLO) Match Program - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
09:17:02 AM |
Marc Carey, Chief
School Finance Officer, and Thomas Rosa, Data Scientist, Legislative Council
Staff, introduced themselves and began their presentation, which can be
found as Attachment B. Mr. Rosa reviewed how the override mill levy match
model works and explained override mill capacity range, which assumes a
mill of 25 with a 10 point deviation. The expectation of where a school
district should or will fall within that range is based on the median family
income in that district. The lowest income district in the state is placed
at 15 mills and the highest income district in the state is placed at 35
mills and the rest of the districts are placed somewhere in between 15
and 35 mills.
|
|
09:26:13 AM |
Mr. Rosa discussed the calculations for potential support versus actual support and answered questions from the committee.
|
|
09:31:00 AM |
The working group
discussed whether the MLO match program considers whether a district passes
bonds or whether it just considers mill levy overrides in the match calculations.
They discussed what constitutes median family income and the difference
between household income and family income.
|
|
09:37:26 AM |
Mr. Rosa provided
several examples of districts that have low property wealth and low household
income and have not passed any voter-approved mill levy overrides so they
are not eligible for the match program. There are 45 districts that fall
into this category, while 22 other districts have low property wealth and
low income but have passed mill levy overrides so they are eligible for
the match program.
Mr. Rosa showed a map of allocations of program funds based on the FY 2023-24
current model results, and explained that some of the small rural districts
get the most match funding per pupil.
|
|
09:42:30 AM |
Mr. Carey continued
by suggesting several issues for the working group's consideration, such
as parameters for district capacity and expectations, terms used to define
district capacity (for example midpoint selection and range boundaries,
which are both set in statute). He said the working group could consider
whether these are the correct parameters or if they should set something
different.
Other considerations reviewed by Mr. Carey include: whether to include
online students in the model, federal impact aid, and voter approved mill
levy overrides that exceed MLO expectations so they are ineligible for
a match and whether this was the original intent of the model.
Another consideration is model sensitivity to key variables in the model,
such as property values and median family income. Last year, some property
value increases pushed districts out of eligibility for a match. He explained
that the model is especially sensitive to changes in the lowest and highest
income and property value districts since they set the range, which is
currently 15-35 mills.
|
|
09:48:09 AM |
Mr. Carey stated
that other incentives for the working group to consider are program incentives
and funding reliability. He provided the example of Sanford 6 J school
district, which would have received a 6.7 mill override match if
they had any voter approved mill overrides.
Mr. Carey discussed the alternative distribution and additional funding
under House Bill 24-1448.
|
|
09:51:40 AM |
Mr. Carey, Mr. Rosa,
and Ms. Gerstle answered questions from the committee. They explained how
the new override caps were derived in HB 24-1448.
|
|
09:55:03 AM |
Mr. Rosa provided
a demonstration of the new tool he has been developing to assist the working
group with modeling changes to the program.
|
Committee Discussion on Goals and Next Steps - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
10:01:32 AM |
Chair Martinez provided
comments on the goals of the working group and next steps.
The working group members discussed changing the median income and midpoint
of the mills range. Mr. Ridgway stated that local discretionary funding,
including mill levy overrides and bonds, has created a greater disparity
in funding across districts and to reward communities for investing in
their district, the range should slide and have the midpoint lowered.
Ms. Gerstle came back to the table to answer questions about the difference
between family and household income. She said that family income is the
income of every person related to the head of household and household income
is the income of every person living in the household, regardless of family
relationship.
The working group continued discussing disparities amongst districts in
the state and whether online students should be counted in the model.
|
|
10:11:30 AM |
The group talked
about whether or not federal impact aid should be included in the model
and the need for a more comprehensive view of school districts that includes
looking at all funding (federal impact aid, bonds, property wealth, household
income, etc).
Chair Martinez asked working group members to provide a perspective from
their district on how well the match program is working.
Working group members talked about the need to look at the districts that
are receiving the bulk of the program money and making sure the funding
stream is reliable and stable before districts go to voters to try to get
an override passed.
They talked about the importance of looking at the federal impact funds
that each district receives, and agreed that the match program should be
a stopgap measure for districts that actually truly need it.
The group discussed getting back to the intent of the program and making
sure the calculation supports the intent. Just because a district has property
"wealth" in terms of assessed value does not necessarily mean
that it has the actual cash flow to cover necessary functions. Members
talked about the need to figure out whether districts, especially small
and rural districts, can keep up with eligibility requirements year after
year when an override is passed.
They continued to discuss the need for a reliable funding stream and the
policies and goals that directed the original formula development. Members
mentioned that the changes made by HB 24-1448 are not fully in line with
the intent of the match program and that voters do not have a full understanding
of how property values and assessed values impact school funding across
the state.
|
|
10:27:46 AM |
Working group members
asked which districts were covered in the original match program versus
which are covered under HB 24-1448.
|
|
10:31:52 AM |
Mr. Rosa reviewed
a map that showed funding amounts for districts under the MLO match program
versus those who received funding through the HB 24-1448 adjustment.
|
School District Perspective on the MLO Match Program - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
10:35:38 AM |
Bret Miles, Executive
Director of the Colorado Association of School Executives, began his presentation.
He explained that the MLO program has become a significant part of school
finance and that it has become a part of districts' main funding stream.
He said that none of the districts in the bottom quartile of funding in
the state have any voter-approved mill levy overrides while 80 percent
of the districts in the top quartile have passed a mill levy override.
He spoke about communities' discretionary income, stating that it is one
thing to have a high assessed value in a district, but that is different
than community members having discretionary income that they feel they
could put towards paying additional mills.
He discussed the need to make sure that the MLO matches are relatively
stable and predictable instead of fluctuating and that economies of scale
need to be supported. He said that MLOs are the biggest equity issue in
our state for school funding and answered questions from the working group.
|
Public Testimony - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
10:47:24 AM |
The working group
took a brief recess.
|
|
10:57:40 AM |
The working group
came back to order. There were no members of the public signed up to testify.
|
| 10:58:19 AM |
Chair Martinez reminded
that the group that they cannot recommend legislation but will be producing
a final report containting recommendations for the legislature.
The members discussed whether and how to include online students in the
funding model, the need to look at regional median income versus district
median income, and how changing variables and recalibrating the model can
change funding amounts.
Members agreed that they may need to look at how to fund different districts
more simplistically (for example, if funding amount is not finite then
how much more should each pupil get) and figure out what the program would
actually cost to actually achieve parity across all districts.
|
| 11:09:54 AM |
The committee adjourned. |
