Date: 02/16/2006

Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB06-1276

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Votes: View--> Action Taken:
Moved amendment L.002 (Attachment D). The motion
Moved to postpone indefinitely HB06-1276. The mot
Refer HB06-1276, as amended, to the Committee of t		PASS
PASS
FAIL



02:44 PM -- House Bill 06-1276

Representative King, prime sponsor, reviewed the provisions of House Bill 06-1276, concerning public schools located in metropolitan districts. He distributed a hand-out (Attachment B). He described his reasons for bringing the bill and said the bill would allow for better master-planned communities. He said that current developments can end up be completed in a disunified manner. He explained how the bill might help to structure growth in large school districts.

02:50 PM

Representative King said that some of this type of planning has already been done, utilizing existing per pupil revenue levels. He responded to questions about the applicability of the bill in regard to open enrollment in the school district.

02:52 PM

Representative King responded to additional questions from the committee about the role of a developer in building new schools. Representative Pommer commented on the role of special districts currently and raised concerns about building requirements under the bill and about a policy for open enrollment for the schools.

03:01 PM

The following persons testified:

03:01 PM -- Jane Urschel, representing the Colorado Association of School Boards (CASB), testified in opposition to the bill. She said that CASB opposes the bill because it fears it would preempt stakeholders form coming to the table to discuss building schools in high-growth areas. She testified that the bill would exclude school district boards of education from a planning process. Ms. Urschel raised potential policy implications for the type of governance system contemplated in the bill.

03:08 PM

Representative King responded to Ms. Urschel's comments and offered that the bill provided an opportunity for residents of a metropolitan district to be taxed and have input into schools within the metropolitan district.

03:11 PM -- Rod Weeks, representing Aurora Public Schools, testified in opposition to the bill. He raised concerns about the potential for a metropolitan district to meet difficulties, leaving schools vulnerable, as well as the potential for adding another level of government to an already complex system. He testified that the bill's provisions could establish disparities within a school district. He voiced concern about the exclusion of school district boards of education from master planning and referenced planning for the E-470 corridor.

03:16 PM -- Phil Fox, representing the Colorado Association of School Executives, testified in opposition to the bill. He testified that the bill may be unnecessary and said that there is already a statutory process for consolidation or deconsolidation of a school district. He also referred to provisions for capital improvement zones that used to be in statute, but have been repealed because they were not utilized. He described the potential for "districts-within-a-district" under the bill.

03:21 PM -- Tony Salazar, representing the Colorado Education Association, testified in opposition to the bill. He said that he had concerns about accountability for taxpayers under the bill and about lifting the exclusive chartering authority for school districts.

03:24 PM -- Kelly Leid, representing the Foundation for Educational Excellence founded by Oakwood Homes, testified in favor of the bill and provided a history of the foundation. He described the goals for collaboration with Denver Public Schools in northeast Denver. He provided a packet to the committee (Attachment C) and reviewed the foundation's definition of great communities and great schools. He spoke about the potential need for school construction within Aurora Public Schools in coming years.

03:31 PM

Mr. Leid continued his presentation on the potential for the role of a metropolitan district under the provisions of the bill. He said that the intent is to pull the business community, city, and school district together in planning for the E-470 corridor. Mr. Leid described ideas that the foundation has for shared-use facilities. Mr. Leid characterized the bill as another "tool in the tool box." In response to questions, he stated that special districts currently would not be authorized to build schools. He confirmed that the Aurora Chamber of Commerce has not taken a position on the bill.


03:41 PM

Mr. Leid said that a partnership would be needed in coming years in order to address expected levels of growth and development. He stated that the foundation hoped to engage existing schools around growth areas as well. Mr. Leid responded to questions about the potential for impact fees to play a role in future development instead of the changes proposed in the bill. He described a changing conversation in development that is bridging partnerships across business and government entities.

03:48 PM

Mr. Leid responded to additional questions and used the development of Stapleton as an example of a plan that moves toward a conversation in the community. Representative Pommer commented on the potential for special exclusions in the charter schools contemplated under the bill. Mr. Leid responded to questions about the demographics of the school in Green Valley Ranch in which Oakwood Homes has partnered.


03:54 PM -- Vicki Newell, Colorado Parent-Teacher Association, spoke about the bill and testified in opposition to its specific provisions.
BILL:HB06-1276
TIME: 03:56:25 PM
MOVED:King
MOTION:Moved amendment L.002 (Attachment D). The motion passed on an 8-5 roll call vote.
SECONDED:White
VOTE
Benefield
No
King
Yes
Larson
Yes
Massey
Yes
McKinley
No
Penry
Yes
Pommer
Yes
Rose
Yes
Solano
No
Todd
Yes
White
Yes
Paccione
No
Merrifield
No
Not Final YES: 8 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS
3:59 PM

The committee discussion focused on the proposed amendment. Mr. Leid returned to the table to respond to questions about the bill.

4:04 PM

Julie Pelegrin, Office of Legislative Legal Services, came to the table to respond to additional questions about language in the bill and prospective land sites for schools. Representative King further explained the intent of his bill.


BILL:HB06-1276
TIME: 04:10:26 PM
MOVED:King
MOTION:Refer HB06-1276, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion failed on a 6-7 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Rose
VOTE
Benefield
No
King
Yes
Larson
Yes
Massey
Yes
McKinley
No
Penry
Yes
Pommer
No
Rose
Yes
Solano
No
Todd
No
White
Yes
Paccione
No
Merrifield
No
Not Final YES: 6 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:HB06-1276
TIME: 04:11:44 PM
MOVED:Paccione
MOTION:Moved to postpone indefinitely HB06-1276. The motion passed on an 8-5 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Merrifield
VOTE
Benefield
Yes
King
No
Larson
Yes
Massey
No
McKinley
Yes
Penry
No
Pommer
Yes
Rose
No
Solano
Yes
Todd
Yes
White
No
Paccione
Yes
Merrifield
Yes
Final YES: 8 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS




04:12 PM


The committee adjourned.