I_OMLM_2024A 11/13/2024 09:01:22 AM Committee Summary

PUBLIC
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING
INTERIM COMMITTEE OVERRIDE MILL LEVY MATCH WORKING GROUP

Date

11/13/2024

Attendance
Jeremy Burmeister	X
Brandan Comfort	X
Aaron Dobson	E
Brett Johnson	X
Brett Ridgway	X
Jana Schleusner	X
Ashley Stephen	X
Pelton B.	X
Martinez	X

Time

09:01:22 AM to 10:29:06 AM

Place

SCR 357

This Meeting was called to order by

Martinez

This Report was prepared by

Rachel Kurtz-Phelan

Hearing Items	Action Taken
hOverview of District Survey Results	Committee Discussion Only
hDiscussion of District Survey Results	Committee Discussion Only
hRecommendations from Working Group	Committee Discussion Only

Overview of District Survey Results - Committee Discussion Only

Attachment Tag

File Name

Attachment A

Attachment A.pdf

Attachment B

Attachment B.pdf

09:01:34 AM

Representative Martinez
reminded the working group about a survey they directed Legislative Council
Staff (LCS) to send out to all 178 school districts in the state about
the Mill Levy Override Match program. He invited Anna Gerstle, LCS, up
to the table to summarize the results of the survey. Her presentation can
be found as Attachment A.

Ms. Gerstle distributed and reviewed a memorandum, which can be found as
Attachment B. She reviewed the list of the 22 districts that responded
to the survey. She explained that the concepts that were repeatedly mentioned
were that the match provided by the state needs to be a predictable and
"meaningful amount" and something that can be communicated to
voters, how hard it is to get an MLO passed, and if the district is going
to go to the voters to ask for an override, the money needs to be guaranteed
by the state.

She discussed additional survey results, including that the timing of the
program can be problematic becuase districts get the match money in June
but they have already approved their budgets for the following school year
by then.

The working group discussed what factors they should consider when making
recommendations. These included how to guarantee match money that is ongoing
and predictable, how to increase funding amounts, and how to make the program
more easy to understand and explain to voters.

Discussion of District Survey Results - Committee Discussion Only


	09:10:22 AM	The working group discussed the district survey results and how those results should inform the working group's recommendations. They spoke about the need for reliable funding, an inverted size factor versus tiered system approach, awarding a minimum funding amount, and how to target districts that really need the extra funding to ensure that the program's intent is being fulfilled. They continued to discuss proportionate funding based on the amount of money available, the need to make the formula simpler, to target more dollars to rural and small rural districts, and focus on tax parity between districts.
	09:33:35 AM	The group talked about that fact that mill levy overrides have become a necessary source of funding for some districts and how to rework the formula in terms of minimum and ceiling funding amounts.
	09:50:30 AM	The committee learned that $15.7 million is appropriated for the 2024-25 school year. Thomas Rosa, LCS, pulled up the data tool and ran some examples using different maximum ceiling percentages and minimum base funding amounts to show the group members the various impacts on different districts.
	10:09:12 AM	The working group continued to discuss how to change the minimum amount, maximum percentage, and whether to consider federal impact aid in the formula. The group discussed what they would like to see in an alternate model that LCS will build before the next meeting, based on the average revenue generated per pupil per mill.

Recommendations from Working Group - Committee Discussion Only


	10:20:36 AM	The working group directed LCS staff to build an alternate model before the last working group meeting in December.

10:29:06 AM

The committee adjourned.

Overview of District Survey Results - Committee Discussion Only

Discussion of District Survey Results - Committee Discussion Only

Recommendations from Working Group - Committee Discussion Only

Colorado General Assembly