School Finance Update CASE Nuts & Bolts Leanne

School Finance Update CASE Nuts & Bolts Leanne

School Finance Update CASE Nuts & Bolts Leanne Emm, Associate Commissioner School Finance Division February 2015 Agenda Total Program Funding 2015-16 Supplemental Funding Request 2015-16 REVISED Budget Request Financial Transparency School Finance Total Program Funding 3 Total Program Funding Formula 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 Base Per Pupil Funding 2015-16 Base Funding - $6,292.39

Increase of $171.39 Inflation of 2.8% 2016-17 Base Funding - $6,367.90 Increase of $75.51 Inflation of 1.2% - Actual Increase of 1.5% (OSPB) Budget Request Formula Per Pupil Funding Factors 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 2015-16 11.83% - with supplemental Illustration Example Total Funded Pupil Count (includes on-line) On-line Pupil Count Total Program Funding This is an illustration of how a districts Total

Program Funding and per pupil funding is calculated. Base Funding (BF) Cost of Living (CL) Personnel Costs (PL) Size (SZ) Total Formula Per-Pupil Funding [SZ*[(BF*CL*PL)+(BF*(1-PL))] Total Formula Funding (Formula Per Pupil Funding * (Total Funded Pupils On-Line ASCENT)) Total At-Risk Funding Total On-Line/ASCENT Funding Total Program Funding (Pre - Negative Factor) District X 389.5 2.0 $6,121.00 1.145 82.09% 1.3552 $9,282.56 $3,596,991

+$177,111 +$14,762 =$3,788,864 Per-Pupil = Total Program Funding / Total Funded Pupil Count (Pre - Negative Factor) $9,727.51 Negative Factor -12.97% * Total Program Funding (491,306) Total Program Funding (Post - Negative Factor) Total Program Per-Pupil Funding (Post -Negative Factor) $3,297,558 $8,466.13 Supplemental Funding Request 2015-16 Supplemental Request 201516 Original Appropriation

Actual 2015-16* Change (with Supplemental)* Funded Pupils 855,391 853,251 (2,140) At-Risk Pupils 309,985 308,140 (1,845) Total Program Prior to Negative Factor $7,094,740,921 $7,070,267,168

($24,473,753) Negative Factor ($855,176,146) ($830,702,393) $24,473,753 Total Program After Negative Factor $6,239,564,775 $6,239,564,775 $0 $7,294.41 $7,312.69 $18.28 Average Per Pupil Funding

*Subject to Legislative Approval Local vs. State Share 2015-16 FY 2015-16 Original Appropriation State Share Local Property Tax Specific Ownership Tax TOTAL FY 2015-16 Total Revised Request FY 2015-16 Requested Supplemental Appropriation $4,113,321,146 $3,979,778,973 ($133,542,173)

1,976,565,021 2,104,957,889 128,392,868 149,678,608 154,827,913 5,149,305 $6,239,564,775 $6,239,564,775 $0 Supplemental Request Accounts for actual October student counts and changes in assessed values and reported specific ownership tax (SOT) Student counts and at-risk counts lower - $24 million less Property taxes and SOT higher - $133 million Total potential savings to state - $157 million legislature must decide on final numbers Reason why no change in state equalization distributions until legislature takes action

Governors request does not change the General Fund State Ed Fund - $105 million & State Public School Fund - $28 11 million Allows for State Ed Fund balance to maintain higher balance use in 2016-17 for REVISED Governors Budget Request 2016-17 Revised Assumptions FY2016-17 Budget Request Original Estimate Revised Estimate Change Pupil Growth 865,454

861,442 (4,012) At-Risk Growth 314,418 311,413 (3,005) 1.8% 1.5% 1.2% Actual $6,386.78 $6,367.90 Actual (0.3%) (0.6%) ($18.87) ($37.75) Inflation Estimate Base Per Pupil Funding $6,405.65

Assumptions FY2016-17 Governors Budget Request Fund growth and inflation Increase in local share Negative factor increase from $830.7 million to $871.5 million Inflation Rate illustrations assume 1.2% final CPI vs. 1.5% Compare Supplemental FY2015-16 to Budget Request* FY2016-17 Actual 2015-16 with Supplemental Funding* Total Program prior to Negative Factor (Growth & Inflation) Negative Factor Revised Total Program Negative Factor Percentage Average Per Pupil Funding 2016-17 Budget Request** Change $7,070,267,168

$7,223,145,566 $152,878,398 (830,702,393) (871,466,681) (40,764,288) $6,239,564,775 $6,351,678,885 $112,114,110 -11.83% -12.08% .25% $7,312.69 $7,373.31 $60.62

*Subject to Legislative Approval **Utilizes the 1.2% Actual Inflation Rate Governors Request Compare Supplemental FY2015-16 to Current Law FY2016-17 ( k ee p ne ga tiv e fa c to r t he s am e) Total Program prior to Negative Factor (Growth & Inflation) Negative Factor Revised Total Program 2016-17 Under Current Law* Actual 2015-16 with Supplemental Funding* (negative factor the same) $7,070,267,168 $7,223,145,566 $152,878,398 (830,702,393)

(830,702,393) -0- $6,239,564,775 $6,392,443,173 $152,878,398 -11.83% -11.51% 0.32% $7,312.69 $7,420.63 $107.94 Negative Factor Percentage Average Per Pupil Funding *Subject to Legislative Approval Total

Range of Options 2016-17 (not all inclusive) 2016-17 Budget Request* Total Program prior to Negative Factor (Growth & Inflation) Negative Factor Revised Total Program Negative Factor Percentage Average Per Pupil Funding *Subject to Legislative Approval 2016-17 Under Current Law* Variation (negative factor the same) $7,223,145,566 $7,223,145,566 -0- (871,466,681)

(830,702,393) $40,764,288 $6,351,678,885 $6,392,443,173 $40,764,288 -12.08% -11.51% 0.57% $7,373.31 $7,420.63 $47.32 Compare Funding Scenarios for 2016-17 Actual 2015-16 with Supplemental Funding* State Share

Local Property Tax Specific Ownership Tax Total Statewide Average Per Pupil Funding *Subject to Legislative Approval 2016-17 Budget Request** 2016-17 Under Current Law* (negative factor the same) $4,113,321,146 $4,076,199,960 $4,116,964,248 1,976,565,021 2,121,309,958 2,121,309,958 149,678,608

154,168,966 154,168,966 $6,239,564,775 $6,351,678,885 $6,392,443,173 $7,312.69 $7,373.31 $7,420.63 2014-15 Total Program Funding - School Finance Act $5.933 Billion Other State Funds; $769.36 ; 12.97% Property Tax; $1,844.57 ; 31.09% State General Fund; $3,183.97 ;

53.66% in millions Specific Ownership; $135.44 ; 2.28% State of Colorado Total Program Funding Gap represents negative factor of 12.04% or $871 million $8,000,000,000 Gaps represent rescissions and legislative actions. $7,000,000,000 $6,000,000,000 $5,000,000,000 $4,000,000,000 $3,000,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $- *Subject to Legislative Approval In millions Change of $787 million between

2009-10 and 2016-17 State of Colorado Average Per Pupil Funding Similar to Total Program, the gaps in the bars represents the effect of the negative factor. Gaps represent rescissions and legislative actions. $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $- For 2015-16, the effect is $973 in

the statewide average per pupil funding. *Subject to Legislative Approval 2009-10 Actual 2010-11 Actual 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14 Actual 2015-16 with Supp. Request* 2016-17 REVISED Governor's Budget

Request Historical Look Actual Funded Total Program* Change from Prior Year 2008-09 Actual $5,347,325,784 NA 2009-10 Actual $5,586,087,039 $238,761,255 2010-11 Actual $5,439,939,345 ($146,147,693) 2011-12 Actual

$5,232,445,847 2012-13 Actual $5,297,963,176 $65,517,329 2013-14 Actual $5,526,933,750 2014-15 Actual 2015-16 with supplemental % Change from Prior Year Funded Pupils Average Per Pupil Funding 778,108 $6,872 $238,761,255

789,497 $7,076 $92,613,561 798,600 $6,813 ($207,493,499) ($114,879,937) 808,139 $6,475 ($49,362,608) 817,645 $6,480 $228,970,574 $179,607,966 830,831

$6,652 $5,933,444,389 $406,510,639 $586,118,605 844,546 $7,026 $6,239,564,775 $306,120,386 $892,238,991 853,251 5.16% 5.16% *includes effects of rescissions and legislative actions NA Cumulative Change

NA $7,313 1.03% 4.09% Review District by District Comparison Spreadsheet posted on School Finance Website: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdefinance/publicschoolfinanceac tof1994-fy2015-16 Illustration of 2014-15 Supplemental Budget Request and 201516 Governors Budget Request SUBJECT TO CHANGE!! 2015 Legislative Session November, 2014 Governor Submits Budget Request for 2015-16 THIS IS ONLY A PROPOSAL! Late November/December 2014 Joint Budget Committee Hearings with Department

The JBC hears about the 2015-16 Budget Request from the Department and seeks any information January 2015 Governor Submits Supplemental Budget Request for 2014-15 Adjusts the Current Year Budget for actual Pupil Counts, AVs, etc. SB15-166 Mid-Year Adjustments - Supplemental Governor Submits Budget Amendments for next budget year Revised estimates for next years students, AVs, etc based on actual Spring 2015 JBC Develops State Budget Figure Setting & Long Bill pass by GA HB14-1298 sets starting point no change in negative factor Spring 2015 School Finance Bill Introduced and passed Adjusts the Long Bill numbers HB14-1292 Student Success Act Financial Transparency Current law per HB14-1292 Department issues RFP for creation of web view that reports expenditures for school sites, districts, CSI and BOCES that

ensures clarity and comparability Districts post information on their website Contractor will compile all district information into one view Data is not submitted by CDE to contractor In place by July 1, 2017 for FY2015-16 data $3M appropriated to do the work and establish contract HB14-1292 Student Success Act Financial Transparency When contracted website is up in July 2017, the following reports will no longer be necessary on district websites: Quarterly financial statements Check registers, credit, debit and purchase card statements Investment performance reports Districts will be required to post the fiscal year 2015-16 financial information to district website actual expenditures, including but not limited to actual salary expenditures and actual benefit expenditures reported by job category specified in the standard chart of accounts, at the local education provider level and at the school-site level. Postings will be on district websites - March 2017 HB14-1292 Student Success Act Financial Transparency Standardized web page that all districts, charter schools, CSI

and BOCES must use must be uniformly used by all Link to templates FPP will create a template that all districts must use to post all of the transparency information including site-level reports Link to spreadsheet template HB14-1292 Student Success Act Reporting of Local Revenues 2014-15 reporting requirement 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 Financial Policies and Procedures Committee Report information through Fund 90 informational items HB14-1292 Student Success Act Looking Ahead Financial Policies and Procedures Sub-Committee working on

HB14-1292 successful implementation guide Spring 2015 Financial Policies and Procedures Advisory Committee (FPP) makes recommendation to the State Board regarding the reporting of revenues Spring 2015 RFI Responses received by CDE this will help inform RFP Target release of RFP: May 2015 Potential Legislation Changes?? Financial Policies and Procedures Committee Upcoming: Full FPP Meeting February 27 - http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdefinance/sfFPP Location: Jeffco Ed Center 9:00 12:00 Video Links: Swink, Durango, Mesa Valley 51, Centennial BOCES Greeley and San Luis Valley BOCES - Alamosa 30 Contact Information Leanne Emm [email protected] 303-866-6202 Jennifer Okes

[email protected] 303-866-2996 Mary Lynn Christel [email protected] 303-866-6818

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Meta-Modeling: A Theory-Based Mixed Methods Synthesis Approach The

    Meta-Modeling: A Theory-Based Mixed Methods Synthesis Approach The

    Purpose. EPPI-Centre . Approach. Realist Synthesis. Approach. Type of mixing. Comparative. To explain patterns in quantitative studies . Interpretive. To better understand intervention context, mechanism and outcome configurations.
  • Indian Affairs-Facility Management System (IA-FMS) Training

    Indian Affairs-Facility Management System (IA-FMS) Training

    The DM Work Order Approval Process. IA-FMS - DM WO Approval (Gatekeeper) Process. The Deferred Maintenance (DM) Work Order Approval Process allows Indian Affairs (IA) to evaluate and verify the accuracy of Deferred Maintenance work orders created in Maximo.
  • CO324 - Computer Systems

    CO324 - Computer Systems

    the project was called GNU - a recursive acronym standing for "GNU's Not UNIX" History of UNIX - Part II. Stallman. The GNU logo. Stallman is still a majorcampaigner. The slide shows a photograph of a very hairy (long hair,...
  • Freshman Seminar Daily Agenda

    Freshman Seminar Daily Agenda

    Objectives. Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain.
  • Snímek 1 - zsnastrani.cz

    Snímek 1 - zsnastrani.cz

    (1949) and the allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945), which together have sold more copies than any two books by any other 20th-century . author. GEORGE ORWELL. Elektronická učebnice - Základní škola Děčín VI, Na Stráni 879/2, příspěvková organizace
  • Mental Health and Wellbeing - Poole Grammar School

    Mental Health and Wellbeing - Poole Grammar School

    Mental health is defined as a state of well-being in which every individual realises his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to...
  • Mathematics in Context (Core Maths) Launch event Grahame

    Mathematics in Context (Core Maths) Launch event Grahame

    Department for Education, Core Maths Technical Guidance, July 2014 Mathematics in Context - Launch events * Core Maths qualifications Intended for learners who achieve A* to C in GCSE Mathematics, who choose not to study AS or A Level Mathematics...
  • Why did the Confederates lose the war? 2J

    Why did the Confederates lose the war? 2J

    Paragraph: PEEL structure. Make sure you think about the judgement and link back to the question! Conclusion: repeat the judgement and use the arguments in support. Discuss judgement, etc… as a class before they start to make sure they are...