Final
Bill A

SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM

Votes:
Action Taken:
Amend Bill A, to include provisions: if Referendum
Renewed his motion to approve Bill A, as amended, 		PASS
PASS


09:07 AM -- Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by the chair, Senator Windels.

09:08 AM

Senator Windels reviewed the process for considering the bill drafts.


09:08 AM -- Bill A

Representative King reviewed the provisions of Bill A, concerning special education funding (Attachment A). He requested that Carolyn Kampman, Joint Budget Committee staff, and Nicole Hoffman, Office of Legislative Legal Services, come to the table. Representative King referred to a memorandum from Carolyn Kampman that was distributed to the committee (Attachment B). Ms. Kampman reviewed the provisions of the bill. She said it would change the allocation of state funds by implementing a new formula for administrative units. She said that the new formula would be phased in so that ultimately all administrative units would receive a statewide per pupil special education funding amount.


09:12 AM

In response to a question from Senator Anderson regarding Amendment 23 requirements for increases for categorical funding, Ms. Kampman discussed special education funding as a proportion of total categorical funding. She continued to refer to data provided in the memorandum. The data shows increases in categorical funding for the past five years. Ms. Kampman said that increases in categorical funding for the past five years have totaled approximately $28 million, and that the projections for future years are based on projections made by Legislative Council Staff. She added that the bill would work toward a special pool for reimbursement for high-cost students. The students for whom school districts would be eligible for reimbursement would be those placed in residential facilities by a court or state agency or those whose education costs exceed a certain threshold.


09:22 AM


Representative King responded to questions about the potential impact of the bill on other categorical programs. He said that the bill assumes that the General Assembly will always fund categorical programs and that special education would receive 80 percent of total funding. Ms. Kampman responded to further questions about the assumptions and factors used in making the projections.


09:28 AM

Ms. Hoffman discussed the fact that the target year for the statewide funding level was set in law and would need to be changed in law if the General Assembly desired a different phase-in period. Ms. Hoffman walked through the provisions of the bill by section. She specified the process and requirements during the phase-in period during which funding would be designated according to the phase in of a statewide per pupil special education amount for each administrative unit. Administrative units would be held harmless based on funding levels in FY 2005-06. Representative Merrifield asked additional questions about the phase-in process and the "hold harmless" provision.


09:34 AM

Ms. Hoffman discussed the second component of the bill, concerning reimbursement for high-cost students. The General Assembly would designate an amount to be used for this type of reimbursement. Ms. Kampman discussed the current statutory provision for appropriating $500,000 for specified high cost students in residential facilities. The committee discussed the determinations made with funding through the required Amendment 23 increases for categorical funding and the future decisions that the General Assembly would make if the provisions of the bill were passed.


09:40 AM

Ms. Hoffman continued to discuss the bill's provisions for reimbursement for high-cost students. One group of eligible students are students placed in a residential facility through court order or other mandated placement by a public agency, and not by an administrative unit. Representative King made further comments about his proposed bill. The reimbursement level is for up to 50 percent of the tuition costs. The reimbursement level for administrative units with eligible excess costs is also 50 percent. The third component of the bill addresses eligible facilities' costs during the phase-in period for high-cost reimbursement.

09:49 AM

Representative King responded to questions about the authority given to the State Board of Education to assist with determining threshold levels and percentages of reimbursement for eligible facilities and high-cost students. Ms. Hoffman made final comments on the bill draft. Senator Anderson commented on the provisions for holding administrative units harmless. Committee members raised further questions regarding students in eligible facilities. Representative King responded to questions about current funding provisions and the goals of the bill.


09:58 AM

Senator Tupa asked further questions about the projections for the number of special education students anticipated to be addressed through the eligible facilities and high-cost student provisions. Representative King made further comments on the provisions for reimbursement.


10:01 AM

Charm Paulmeno, Colorado Department of Education, responded to questions about out-of-state placement and indicated that the number is usually about five or six students each year. Ms. Paulmeno responded to further questions and noted that the reimbursement for students in eligible facilities are limited to statutory criteria established for facilities, criteria that out-of-state facilities do not meet. Reimbursement for placement in out-of-state facilities could only be made through provisions for high-cost students.


10:06 AM

Senator Bacon discussed the manner in which certain districts would be held harmless depending on current funding levels. Ms. Kampman responded to questions and reviewed the way that special education students are currently funded. Committee discussion on these issues continued. Senator Anderson discussed the efforts to bring each administrative unit to a statewide per pupil funding level. Representative Merrifield stated that his concern was that some school districts would have to work within current funding levels for several years.


10:17 AM

Glenn Gustafson, Chief Financial Officer, Colorado Springs School District #11, came to the table to discuss the potential impact of the bill on his school district. His school district currently receives the highest level of special education funding. Mr. Gustafson noted that the bill addresses both a concept of equalization and a new policy for pooling special education costs. He said that he feels both concepts are important. Senator Anderson made further comments based on Mr. Gustafson's testimony. Mr. Gustafson responded to further questions about a school district's responsibilities in seeking reimbursement for high-cost students under the bill.



10:24 AM

Representative King discussed future flexibility to allocate money to the statewide base versus money that would be added to categorical funding. Scott Murphy, Chief Financial Officer, Littleton School District, said that he was familiar with the discussions as the bill was drafted and said that the issue for school districts was unreimbursed costs and unreimbursed costs as a percentage of a school district's total funding.


10:28 AM

Velma Rose, Chief Financial Officer, Denver Public Schools, expressed agreement with prior comments by Mr. Gustafson and Mr. Murphy. She suggested a re-examination of the program and its impact on school districts in a couple of years. Mr. Murphy made further comments on districts' unreimbursed costs. There was discussion about ongoing evaluation and looking at data over time.


10:33 AM

Represetnative King moved to refer Bill A to the Legislative Council as an interim committee recommendation.

BILL:Bill A
TIME: 10:33:45 AM
MOVED:Anderson
MOTION:Amend Bill A, to include provisions: if Referendum C passes, require that the special education pool be funded with a new revenue stream from the general fund exempt account, not from Amendment 23 (State Education Fund) moneys. Amend the bill's requirement for a report to the House and Senate Education Committees to include an in-depth analysis from the Colorado Department of Education in three years. The motion passed on a 9-1 roll call vote.
SECONDED:
VOTE
Anderson
Yes
Bacon
Yes
Benefield
Yes
King
Yes
Penry
No
Pommer
Yes
Spence
Yes
Tupa
Yes
Merrifield
Yes
Windels
Yes
Not Final YES: 9 NO: 1 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


10:38 AM

Julie Pelegrin, Office of Legislative Legal Services, discussed the potential for adding statutory language or whether it would be more appropriate to add an appropriations clause when the bill is introduced and when the outcome of Referendum C is known.

BILL:Bill A
TIME: 10:45:05 AM
MOVED:King
MOTION:Renewed his motion to approve Bill A, as amended, for referral to the Legislative Council as an interim committee bill. The motion passed on a 10-0 roll call vote.
SECONDED:
VOTE
Anderson
Yes
Bacon
Yes
Benefield
Yes
King
Yes
Penry
Yes
Pommer
Yes
Spence
Yes
Tupa
Yes
Merrifield
Yes
Windels
Yes
Final YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS




10:47 AM

The committee recessed.


11:01 AM

The committee came back to order.


11:01 AM

Senator Windels asked for sponsors for Bill A. Representative King would be the prime sponsor in the House, and Senator Bacon agreed to be the prime sponsor in the Senate.