Leanne Emm, Associate Commissioner – School Finance Update League of Charter Schools Annual Finance Seminar September 2015

 Total Program Funding  2015 Legislative Session & Funding Levels  Financial Reporting & Transparency Agenda

Total Program Funding equals: =(funded pupil count x formula per pupil funding) + at-risk funding + online & ASCENT funding After Total Program is calculated, the Negative Factor is Applied Total Program Funding Formula

  Base Funding - $6,  Increase of $  Inflation of 2.8%   Base Funding - $6,  Increase of $  Inflation of 2.8% Base Per Pupil Funding

 Base per pupil funding is adjusted by factors  Cost of Living  Personnel & Non-personnel costs  Size of district  Determine At-Risk Funding, On-line and ASCENT Funding  Once Total Program is determined, the negative factor is applied  – 12.13% Formula Per Pupil Funding - Factors

2015 Legislative Session & Discussion of Funding Levels

 Provided funding to fund growth and inflation plus $25 million buy down of negative factor  Provides a starting point for that states negative factor amount will not increase from  Minimum state aid funding permanently removed  $5 million additional at-risk per pupil funding – estimated at approximately $16 per pupil  Legislative declaration (intention):  If the actual local share higher than estimates, then the state share of total program will not decrease.  Through the supplemental appropriation process Legislative Session SB –School Finance Act

Estimated Change Total Pupil Growth*10,844855,391 At-Risk Growth448309,985 Inflation Estimate2.8%NA Base Per Pupil Funding$171.39$6, Assumptions FY Final Budget *Legislative Council provides estimates

Actual Final Budget Change Total Program prior to Negative Factor (Growth & Inflation) $6,813,620,535$7,094,740,921$281,120,386 Negative Factor(880,176,146)(855,176,146)25,000,000 Revised Total Program$5,933,444,389$6,239,564,775$306,120,386 Negative Factor Percentage %-12.13%.84% Average Per Pupil Funding$7,025.60$7,294.41$ Assumptions FY Final Budget

Actual Final Appropriation Change State Share$3,950,612,482$4,113,321,147$162,708,665 Local Property Tax1,837,512,8701,976,565,020139,052,150 Specific Ownership Tax 145,319,037149,678,6084,359,571 Total$5,933,444,389$6,239,564,775$306,120,386 Compare FY Final to FY Appropriation

 Odd Years – reassessment year for counties  2015 is reassessment year  In August, assessors send preliminary AVs to districts  In December, assessors send final AVs to districts and CDE  AVs are plugged into the school finance formula and the local share is determined based upon mill levies  Once the local share is determined (property tax plus specific ownership tax), the state “backfills” the rest of total program  Legislative Council bases estimates for the following year on the December actuals – built into School Finance Act Property Tax & Assessed Values

 Mill levies  Equals one-tenth of one percent (.001)  Assessed values based on percentage of actual value  Residential – 7.96% of actual  Most other (commercial) – 29%  In , total program mill levies were frozen at 27 mills or less  Four districts that have not passed TABOR elections are a bit different  AV X mill levy = property taxes  $10,000,000 AV X.027 mills = $270,000 property tax Property Tax & Assessed Values

 Total Program - mill levy set to generate local share  Capped at 27 mills. Cannot go up from prior year.  Bond Redemption – mill levy set to generate funds to pay off debt (voter approved)  This levy can potentially float up and down depending on the AVs  Voter approved overrides – mill levy approved by voters to provide funding for district  Might be a certain dollar amount or a certain mill  Abatements – mill levy to recapture property tax refunds or cancellations based on revaluations  Will change from year to year Mill Levies

 SOT are paid on motor vehicles – collected by counties  Counties distribute SOT to all taxing entities in the county  Distributed based on the proportion of property taxes collected by each taxing entity Property Taxes + Specific Ownership Taxes = Local Share Total Program – Local Share = State Share Specific Ownership Taxes (SOT)

Illustration of Two Districts

 Legislative declaration (intention):  If the actual local share higher than estimates, then the state share of total program will not decrease.  Statewide – look at assessed values and the local share  Will AVs increase over the estimates?  This may increase the local share. Consider SOT also.  What will happen with pupil counts?  If it is higher than estimated, then the whole pie needs to grow.  Will increases in local share cover any changes in pupil counts?  Intent: the state provides the same level of funding - $4.1B Legislative decision that will happen through the supplemental appropriation process. SB – Legislative Intent

Similar to Total Program, the gaps in the bars represents the effect of the negative factor. For , the effect is $1,000 in the statewide average per pupil funding. State of Colorado Average Per Pupil Funding

November, 2015Governor Submits Budget Request for THIS IS ONLY A PROPOSAL! Late November/December 2015 Joint Budget Committee Hearings with Department The JBC hears about the Budget Request from the Department and seeks any information January 2016Governor Submits Supplemental Budget Request for Adjusts the Current Year Budget for actual Pupil Counts, AVs, etc. Governor Submits Budget Amendments for next budget year Revised estimates for next year’s students, AVs, etc based on actual Spring 2016JBC Develops State Budget – Figure Setting & Long Bill – pass by GA SB sets starting point – no change in negative factor Spring 2016School Finance Bill Introduced and passed Adjusts the Long Bill numbers 2016 Legislative Session

Financial Reporting & Transparency

 reporting requirement per HB – additional local property tax revenue – mill levy overrides  How much is distributed to schools of the district  Department will compile the report  Districts and charter schools review report prior to publication  District or charter school may request an addendum  Overall distribution by district to charter schools  Capital construction and facilities  Funding for technology  Other funding Data Pipeline: Financial New Reporting Requirement

Report required information through Fund 90 – informational items  Total Amount Authorized – Voter Approved Overrides  The total amount that was authorized through elections  Total Amount Collected – Voter Approved Overrides  The total amount that was actually collected by the district for overrides (this might be different than the authorized amount)  Amount Distributed to Charter Schools – Voter Approved Overrides  Does your district pass along override funding directly to charter schools?  Amount Distributed to Non-Charter Schools – Voter Approved Overrides  Does your district pass along override funding directly to district schools?  Amount Retained by District – Voter Approved Overrides  Any amounts that are not directly passed along to the schools within the district. Data Pipeline: Financial New Reporting Requirement

Beginning July 1, 2015 Local Education Providers (LEP: School Districts, BOCES, Charter Schools and the Charter School Institute) must begin following the revised financial transparency requirements set forth in HB and HB Financial Transparency: HB and HB

 LEP homepages – two options  Begin using the Financial Transparency Icon on your website homepage as a link to the July 1, 2015 LEP Financial Transparency Webpage or  Ensure the words “Financial Transparency” are clearly visible on your website homepage – as a link to the required July 1, 2015 LEP Financial Transparency Webpage On your website homepage, the Financial Transparency icon, or the words “Financial Transparency” must link to your Financial Transparency Webpage – which follows the Standard Webpage Template July 1, 2015

I

Website Homepage Example with Icon

Website Homepage Example with words “Financial Transparency”

Web Resources The Financial Transparency Icon, the required website templates and other Financial Transparency information is on the CDE website : Financial Transparency Basic Considerations Guide Financial Transparency

 State Board approved the Financial Policies and Procedures Advisory Committee (FPP) recommendation regarding the reporting of revenues  Recommendation was presented Wednesday, September 9  No change to chart of accounts – school level revenue can already be reported through existing structures  Not recommending that “district wide revenues” are allocated down to school level. HB – FPP Recommendation on Revenue

NamePhone Primary Duties Leanne Commissioner Jennifer Finance Director Mary Lynn School Finance Kirk Weber Technical Assistance – Financial Reporting; Budgeting; Accounting Paul Fiscal Analyst - Financial Reporting; Budgeting; Accounting David Fiscal Supervisor Scott Director Jane Nutrition Director Primary Contacts