|
PUBLIC
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING
INTERIM COMMITTEE OVERRIDE MILL LEVY MATCH WORKING GROUP
| Date |
10/22/2024 |
| Attendance |
| Jeremy Burmeister |
X |
| Brandon Comfort |
X |
| Aaron Dobson |
X |
| Brett Johnson |
X |
| Brett Ridgway |
X |
| Jana Schleusner |
X |
| Ashley Stephen |
X |
| Kirkmeyer |
X |
| Martinez |
X |
|
| Time |
09:01:26 AM to 11:34:23 AM |
| Place |
SCR 352 |
| This Meeting was called to order by |
Martinez |
| This Report was prepared by |
Rachel Kurtz-Phelan |
|
| Hearing Items |
Action Taken |
| hOpen Meetings Laws for the Working Group |
Committee Discussion Only |
| hState Budget and Potential Revenue Streams |
Committee Discussion Only |
| hPerspective on MLO Match Program |
Committee Discussion Only |
| hDistrict Survey Discussion |
Committee Discussion Only |
| hCSI Schools & the MLO Match Program |
Committee Discussion Only |
| hModeling Scenarios |
Committee Discussion Only |
| hPublic Testimony |
Committee Discussion Only |
|
|
Open Meetings Laws for the Working Group - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
09:01:37 AM |
Jeremiah Berry, Office
of Legislative Legal Services, reviewed the Colorado Open Meetings and
Open Records laws as they apply to the working group. His presentation
can be found as Attachment A.
|
State Budget and Potential Revenue Streams - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
09:13:24 AM |
Andrea Uhl, Joint
Budget Committee Staff, began her presentation on the state budget and
potential revenue streams for the MLO Match program, which can be found
as Attachment B. She reviewed MLO match funding history from the General
Fund and State Education Fund. Ms. Uhl explained that currently, the state
transfers money from the General Fund (GF) or State Education Funding (SEF)
into the MLO Match Fund as a cash transfer instead of doing a direct appropriation.
She explained that in terms of the state share of districts' total program
funding, the largest amount comes from the GF, follwed by the SEF, and
finally the State Public School Fund. She discussed the SEF balance, which
is quickly decreasing, which means that the GF appropriation for school
finance can no longer be held constant and will need to increase to account
for the decrease in the SEF.
|
|
09:24:18 AM |
Ms. Uhl explained
that the SEF is also used for a variety of other one time and ongoing education-related
programs. She suggested some considerations for the working group, such
as: setting the maximum amount the MLO match program should cost annually;
is it more important to fully fund fewer districts or more districts at
a lower amount; and how should this program be prioritized against all
the other GF uses. Ms. Uhl answered questions from the committee.
|
Perspective on MLO Match Program - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
09:40:15 AM |
Brett Johnson, Chief
Financial Officer, Aurora Public Schools, began his presentation providing
a district perspective on the MLO Match program, which can be found as
Attachment C. He discussed the relationship between the state share and
local share, the history of the state's K-12 financial obligation and the
rise of the budget stabilization factor, and the need for school district
tax parity.
He reviewed the range that different taxpayer communities need to pay to
achieve one additional mill, which leads to serious disparities among what
taxpayers are asked to pay to achieve additional dollars. He explained
that one mill on a statewide average basis produces approximately $216
per pupil, but that districts vary greatly between what they pay for additional
mills and how that translates to additioal per pupil funding amounts.
|
|
09:53:11 AM |
Mr. Johnson reviewed
ideas for potential solutions to create more parity and equalization. He
answered questions from the committee. Committee discussion ensued.
|
District Survey Discussion - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
10:17:51 AM |
Anna Gerstle, Legislative Council Staff, began her discussion on whether the working group would like staff to conduct a survey of districts who have received funds through this program and if so, what kinds of questions to include. Committee members made comments.
|
|
10:27:52 AM |
The committee continued
to discuss questions to include in a survey.
|
CSI Schools & the MLO Match Program - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
10:33:13 AM |
Marc Carey, Legislative
Council Staff, began his presentation on Charter School Institute schools
and the MLO match program, which can be found as Attachment D.
|
Modeling Scenarios - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
10:44:03 AM |
Thomas Rosa, Legislative
Council Staff, reviewed several different modeling scenarios based on using
a variety of district and regional level measures, including median income
variables and parameters, minimum and maximum district allocations, online
students, and other options proposed by working group members.
|
|
10:53:11 AM |
Mr. Rosa answered
questions from the committee. Committee members made comments about various
ways to make adjustments that still support the intent of the MLO match
program.
|
|
11:12:30 AM |
The committee discussed
next steps and priorities.
|
Public Testimony - Committee Discussion Only
|
|
|
11:32:09 AM |
Dr. Terry Croy Lewis,
representing Colorado Charter School Institute, was available to answer
questions from the working group.
|
| 11:34:23 AM |
The committee adjourned. |
