I_OMLM_2024A 10/22/2024 09:01:26 AM Committee Summary PUBLICSTAFF SUMMARY OF MEETINGINTERIM COMMITTEE OVERRIDE MILL LEVY MATCH WORKING GROUP Date 10/22/2024 Attendance Jeremy Burmeister X Brandon Comfort X Aaron Dobson X Brett Johnson X Brett Ridgway X Jana Schleusner X Ashley Stephen X Kirkmeyer X Martinez X Time 09:01:26 AM to 11:34:23 AM Place SCR 352 This Meeting was called to order by Martinez This Report was prepared by Rachel Kurtz-Phelan Hearing Items Action Taken hOpen Meetings Laws for the Working Group Committee Discussion Only hState Budget and Potential Revenue Streams Committee Discussion Only hPerspective on MLO Match Program Committee Discussion Only hDistrict Survey Discussion Committee Discussion Only hCSI Schools & the MLO Match Program Committee Discussion Only hModeling Scenarios Committee Discussion Only hPublic Testimony Committee Discussion Only Open Meetings Laws for the Working Group - Committee Discussion Only Attachment Tag File Name Attachment A https://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2024A/commsumm.nsf/0/5A3AF987A448...$File/Attachment A.pdf?OpenElement Attachment A.pdf 09:01:37 AM Jeremiah Berry, Office of Legislative Legal Services, reviewed the Colorado Open Meetings and Open Records laws as they apply to the working group. His presentation can be found as Attachment A. State Budget and Potential Revenue Streams - Committee Discussion Only Attachment Tag File Name Attachment B https://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2024A/commsumm.nsf/0/A88CDBA9E664...$File/Attachment B.pdf?OpenElement Attachment B.pdf 09:13:24 AM Andrea Uhl, Joint Budget Committee Staff, began her presentation on the state budget and potential revenue streams for the MLO Match program, which can be found as Attachment B. She reviewed MLO match funding history from the General Fund and State Education Fund. Ms. Uhl explained that currently, the state transfers money from the General Fund (GF) or State Education Funding (SEF) into the MLO Match Fund as a cash transfer instead of doing a direct appropriation. She explained that in terms of the state share of districts' total program funding, the largest amount comes from the GF, follwed by the SEF, and finally the State Public School Fund. She discussed the SEF balance, which is quickly decreasing, which means that the GF appropriation for school finance can no longer be held constant and will need to increase to account for the decrease in the SEF. 09:24:18 AM Ms. Uhl explained that the SEF is also used for a variety of other one time and ongoing education-related programs. She suggested some considerations for the working group, such as: setting the maximum amount the MLO match program should cost annually; is it more important to fully fund fewer districts or more districts at a lower amount; and how should this program be prioritized against all the other GF uses. Ms. Uhl answered questions from the committee. Perspective on MLO Match Program - Committee Discussion Only Attachment Tag File Name Attachment C https://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2024A/commsumm.nsf/0/D647E8DFD25B...$File/Attachment C.pdf?OpenElement Attachment C.pdf 09:40:15 AM Brett Johnson, Chief Financial Officer, Aurora Public Schools, began his presentation providing a district perspective on the MLO Match program, which can be found as Attachment C. He discussed the relationship between the state share and local share, the history of the state's K-12 financial obligation and the rise of the budget stabilization factor, and the need for school district tax parity. He reviewed the range that different taxpayer communities need to pay to achieve one additional mill, which leads to serious disparities among what taxpayers are asked to pay to achieve additional dollars. He explained that one mill on a statewide average basis produces approximately $216 per pupil, but that districts vary greatly between what they pay for additional mills and how that translates to additioal per pupil funding amounts. 09:53:11 AM Mr. Johnson reviewed ideas for potential solutions to create more parity and equalization. He answered questions from the committee. Committee discussion ensued. District Survey Discussion - Committee Discussion Only 10:17:51 AM Anna Gerstle, Legislative Council Staff, began her discussion on whether the working group would like staff to conduct a survey of districts who have received funds through this program and if so, what kinds of questions to include. Committee members made comments. 10:27:52 AM The committee continued to discuss questions to include in a survey. CSI Schools & the MLO Match Program - Committee Discussion Only Attachment Tag File Name Attachment D https://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2024A/commsumm.nsf/0/9E5F02016918...$File/Attachment D.pdf?OpenElement Attachment D.pdf 10:33:13 AM Marc Carey, Legislative Council Staff, began his presentation on Charter School Institute schools and the MLO match program, which can be found as Attachment D. Modeling Scenarios - Committee Discussion Only 10:44:03 AM Thomas Rosa, Legislative Council Staff, reviewed several different modeling scenarios based on using a variety of district and regional level measures, including median income variables and parameters, minimum and maximum district allocations, online students, and other options proposed by working group members. 10:53:11 AM Mr. Rosa answered questions from the committee. Committee members made comments about various ways to make adjustments that still support the intent of the MLO match program. 11:12:30 AM The committee discussed next steps and priorities. Public Testimony - Committee Discussion Only 11:32:09 AM Dr. Terry Croy Lewis, representing Colorado Charter School Institute, was available to answer questions from the working group. 11:34:23 AM The committee adjourned.
