1. School Finance Update Leanne Emm, Associate Commissioner–
Jennifer Okes, Director –
Public School Finance and Operations Division
July 2015

2. Agenda Total Program Funding 2015 Legislative Session & Funding Levels
Accreditation & Transparency
BEST Program
Other Items

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

4. Base Per Pupil Funding 2014-15 Base Funding - $6,121.00 2015-16
Increase of $166.72
Inflation of 2.8%
Base Funding - $6,292.39
Increase of $171.39

5. 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
– 12.13%
Once the base funding has been set, the base has factors applied. These factors determine the per pupil funding amount by district and each district is different.
Cost of living – factor that attempts to reflect the differences between districts for the cost of housing, goods and services. Aspen has a higher cost of living factor than a small rural district.
Personnel costs factor – based on enrollment and incorporates cost of living for personnel.
Size factor – driven by enrollment and attempts to reflect purchasing power within districts. Small districts have greater size factor adjustments.
At-risk funding – based on the numbers of students qualifying for free lunches
On-Line funding – based on the number of students enrolled in an online program within the district. There are various rules that make a student eligible to be counted.
Once these factors are applied to the base, a total per pupil funding amount is determined for district. This amount is then multiplied by the districts funded pupil count to arrive at total program funding.

6. 2015 Legislative Session & Discussion of Funding Levels

7. 2015 Legislative Session SB15-267 –School Finance Act
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.

8. Pupil Count Estimates
Long bill and School Finance Act based on pupil count estimates
After the October counts are finalized in December, Legislative Council staff prepare estimates for the next year
They send out the estimates and seek input from districts (around Nov/Dec)
They use discretion on incorporating input
Similar to fiscal notes
CDE will help ensure that district’s receive the estimates

9. July State Share Payments
Traditionally, the Department has allowed districts to revise their pupil counts from the final budget appropriation and receive funding based on these revisions – this causes the entire formula to rerun which causes differences from the original appropriation.
This year significant pupil count changes caused a larger difference which caused July payments to vary at a greater rate than the original appropriation
August payments will be recalculated and based upon the original appropriation estimates and will incorporate the funds received in July

10. Assumptions FY2015-16 Final Budget
Estimated Change
Total
Pupil Growth*
10,844
855,391
At-Risk Growth
448
309,985
Inflation Estimate
2.8% NA
Base Per Pupil Funding
$171.39
$6,292.39
Sources
Colorado Department of Education
*Legislative Council provides estimates

11. Assumptions FY2015-16 Final Budget
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
-12.97%
-12.13%
.84%
Average Per Pupil Funding
$7,025.60
$7,294.41
$268.81
Sources
Colorado Department of Education

12. Compare FY2014-15 Final to FY2015-16 Appropriation
Actual
Final Appropriation
Change
State Share
$3,950,612,482
$4,113,321,147
$162,708,665
Local Property Tax
1,837,512,870
1,976,565,020
139,052,150
Specific Ownership Tax
145,319,037
149,678,608
4,359,571
Total
$5,933,444,389
$6,239,564,775
$306,120,386

13. The School Finance Act is funded with a combination of State General Fund; local funds including property tax and specific ownership tax and other state funds which include the State Education Fund and the Public School Fund.

14. Property Tax & Assessed Values
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

15. 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

16. Mill Levies 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

17. Specific Ownership Taxes (SOT)
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

18. Illustration of Two Districts

19. SB15-267 – Legislative Intent
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.

21. State of Colorado Average Per Pupil Funding
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.

22. 2016 Legislative Session November, 2015
Governor 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 2016
Governor 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 2016
JBC Develops State Budget – Figure Setting & Long Bill – pass by GA
SB sets starting point – no change in negative factor
School Finance Bill Introduced and passed
Adjusts the Long Bill numbers

23. Accreditation, Transparency

24. Data Pipeline: Financial December
The Financial December collection opens August 15th for the FY14-15 data collection
Optional Financial December Data Checklist
Checklist is designed to help districts catch common data submission mistakes/issues before their audit is approved and submitted to the Department
All Financial December material can be found on the Public School Finance web page under “Financial Reporting”

25. Data Pipeline: Financial New Reporting Requirement
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

26. 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.

27. Financial Transparency: HB 14-1292 and HB15-1321
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

28. July 1, 2015 LEP homepages – two options or
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

29. I

30. Website Homepage Example with Icon

31. Website Homepage Example with Icon

32. Website Homepage Example with words “Financial Transparency”

33. Website Homepage Example with words “Financial Transparency”

34. 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

35. Transparency Vendor RFPs were received by 5 vendors
RFPs will be reviewed and vendor selected by mid-August
3 district representatives on review team
CDE will contract with the vendor and begin design and building of “big” transparency website
Vendor will obtain financial information from district websites beginning with the FY data
Districts will ensure this is posted on their websites
“Big” contracted transparency website live July 1, 2017
Will be able to compare school level data

36. HB14-1292 – FPP Recommendation on Revenue
Financial Policies and Procedures Advisory Committee (FPP) makes recommendation to the State Board regarding the reporting of revenues
Recommendation will be presented in September
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.

37. School Finance Contacts Pipeline, Accreditation, Transparency
Mary Lynn Christel: –
Yolanda Lucero:
Paul Reynolds: –
Kirk Weber:
Adam Williams:

38. BEST Program

39. BEST Program
The Division anticipates approximately $50 million available for grants in the coming year
Grants are available for any school capital improvement project with a focus on health, safety, security, overcrowding, technology and all other types
Contact Division staff to get started on next year’s BEST application

40. BEST Program – 2015-16 Updating the Statewide Facility Assessment
The Division of Capital Construction is currently developing an in-house assessment program to update the statewide facility assessment performed in 2010.
CDE assessors will make site visits to schools to assess facility conditions and suitability;
In the case the school already has an assessment program CDE will work with the district to obtain the relevant data points;
CDE assessors will update the assessment data on an ongoing basis;
The Capital Construction Assistance Board and the Division will use this data to solicit applications, review grant requests and provide technical support to schools.
Assessments are scheduled to begin in the spring of 2016

41. Audit Overview Purpose School Finance Funding Pupil Count At-Risk
Transportation Funding
Cycle
One to four years depending on size and other risk factors
Scheduling January to June and July to December
Approach
Compliance vs. training and support
Risk Based
Audits are designed to ensure accuracy of school finance and transportation funding
Audits are performed on a one to four year cycle depending on district size and other risk factors
1 yr – 14 districts
2 yr – 18 districts
3 yr – 41 districts
4 yr – 106 districts
30 audits in fall and 30 audit in spring 41

42. Audit Process Engagement Letter Audit Liaisons Expectations
Data privacy
Scheduling
Audit documentation
Field Work and Report Draft
Management Representation Letter
Feedback and Report Finalization
Appeal
Audits are designed to ensure accuracy of school finance and transportation funding
Audits are performed on a one to four year cycle depending on district size and other risk factors 42

43. Student Types
There are various student types that require additional documentation to support the standard enrollment, attendance, and schedule requirements. Updated and expanded guidance has been developed for the following student types:
Concurrent Enrollment Students
ASCENT Students
Expelled Students
Home-School Students
Home-Bound Students
Independent Study Students
Online Students
Work Study Students 43

44. Resources Individual Training and Support Regional Training Classes
October Count 101: La Junta (Aug 25), Alamosa (Aug 26), Ft Morgan (Sept 1), Glenwood Springs (Sept 3), Aurora (Sept 10)
Webinars
At-Risk (Aug 18), CE (Aug 27), October Count (Sept 17)
Website (
Pupil Count - including the Student October Count Resource Guide:
At-Risk Count - including the At-Risk Resource Guide:
Transportation – including Transportation PowerPoint:
One-on-One Training: FAST members are available for individual assistance and support.
Field Training: We will be developing additional training resources for the field to clarify transportation funding issues in the upcoming months.

45. School Transportation
School Transportation Advisory Reviews (STAR):
On-site visits every 2 years
Scheduling notification in July
Rotating Cycle:
Vehicle Inspection/Garage Operations
Administration/Training Operations Purpose
Resources:
Individual Training and Support
Regional Training Classes
Website (
Audits are designed to ensure accuracy of school finance and transportation funding
Audits are performed on a one to four year cycle depending on district size and other risk factors
1 yr – 14 districts
2 yr – 18 districts
3 yr – 41 districts
4 yr – 106 districts
30 audits in fall and 30 audit in spring 45

46. Nutrition

47. Professional Standards for Food Service Employees
Hiring standards/minimum education requirements for new food service directors
Must obtain food safety certification within first 30 days of hire
Annual training requirements for all food service employees
Professional Standards: Became effective on July 1, 2015; USDA established minimum professional standards requirements for school nutrition professionals who manage and operate the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. The standards are another key provision of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 and aim to institute minimum education standards for new state and local school nutrition directors, as well as annual training standards for all school nutrition professionals.
Annual continuing education/training for all school nutrition professionals; minimum of eight hours of food safety within past five years or within 30 days of starting date
Each training offered by the OSN will meet learning objectives that are required for annual training standards.
Check out the OSN website for more information and resources. From the OSN home page: , click on the “training” tab in the upper left hand corner.
Check out our resources! 47

48. Upcoming Training
Administrative Review Training for 2015 – 2016 review cycle
10 regional locations; August – September 2015
Financial Management webinars – Fall 2015
2015 Directors’ Conference, Oct. 14 – 16, 2015
In conjunction with the Advisory Council for School Nutrition (ACSN)
Online School Nutrition Trainings and Resources on the Web!
Administrative Review Trainings: Before the OSN starts conducting reviews of district compliance with the school meals programs, school food authorities scheduled for a review in the review cycle will have an opportunity to attend one of 10 regionally-based trainings to help prepare and learn what to expect during the review. These trainings will start in August and end in September.
2015 Directors’ Conference: The OSN will host the annual Directors’ Conference, Oct. 14 – 16, 2015 in Copper Mountain, CO. The conference will be held in conjunction with the Advisory Council for School Nutrition (ACSN) meeting. The conference provides the most up-to-date information on the operation, implementation and compliance of child nutrition programs, provided by OSN, USDA and partner organizations. Motivational speakers are also included in this event and cover the leadership, human resources, training and management areas of the school food service. Over 215 directors and school food professionals, representing most districts in Colorado, attended the 2014 Directors’ Conference in Pueblo.
The office has also expanded its online trainings and resources. We highly encourage anyone involved in the school meals programs to take a look at what we have to offer on our training webpage: