CLICS/CLICS2024A/commsumm.nsf
PUBLIC
BILL SUMMARY For PRESENTATION ON THE MILL LEVY OVERRIDE (MLO) MATCH PROGRAM
INTERIM COMMITTEE OVERRIDE MILL LEVY MATCH WORKING GROUP
Date Sep 24, 2024
Location SCR 352
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.
|
