CLICS/CLICS2024A/commsumm.nsf
PUBLIC
BILL SUMMARY For COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON GOALS AND NEXT STEPS
INTERIM COMMITTEE OVERRIDE MILL LEVY MATCH WORKING GROUP
Date Sep 24, 2024
Location SCR 352
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.
|
