GovRitterBanner

Press Release- Mar 29, 2007

OFFICE OF GOV. BILL RITTER, JR.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
THURSDAY, MAR. 29, 2007

Contact:
Evan Dreyer, 720.350.8370

GOV. RITTER STATEMENT ON SCHOOL FINANCE OPINION FROM OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES

Gov. Bill Ritter issued the following statement today regarding the Office of Legislative Legal Services' opinion regarding school financing:

"The OLLS opinion reflects precisely what I said from the start of this conversation: The legislature has full legal authority to stabilize the local share of K-12 funding in this fashion. We're eager to work with the legislature to solve a problem in desperate need of solving. This is why the people of Colorado elected us: to solve problems.

"If we don't, the State Education Fund will be broke in 2011. As a result, every corner of the state budget not protected by the Constitution or a federal mandate -- every service provided to the people of Colorado -- will suffer. This includes higher education, health care, human services and the courts.

"People in almost every school district in the state have already said this is something they want. They have already voted on de-Brucing measures and given their OK for school districts to retain those funds.

"This simply gives voice to the will of voters in those districts. It allows the state to repeal statutory language that essentially "re-Bruces" all of those districts. Below are key excerpts from the OLLS opinion:

  • This "clearly does not constitute a new tax, tax rate increase, mill levy above that for the prior year, valuation for assessment ration increase for a property tax, or extension of an expiring tax for purposes of the voter approval requirement of section 20 (4)(a) of article X of the state constitution" (TABOR). (page 1)
  • This "does not constitute a tax policy change, nor does it directly cause a net tax revenue gain to any district. Accordingly, prior voter approval is not required in order for the General Assembly to repeal the statutory provision (that requires the mill levy to fall)." (page 9)
  • "The decision to require districts to levy the same number of mills from year to year is driven by school finance policy considerations and is not a tax policy change." (page 10) "The statute requiring a mill levy reduction to comply with each district's constitutional property tax revenue limit was originally enacted as a school finance policy change, and its removal is also a school finance policy change. (Page 13)
  • "Repealing this statutory section does not result in a growth in state or local government. It does not increase the moneys available to school districts because the total amount that a school district can raise is still capped at the school district¿s total program funding plus other statutory mill levy overrides that are not affected by the repeal. In addition, the repeal does not affect the amount of tax revenue received by the state, it merely allows the state to redirect general fund moneys that would otherwise be used to fund the school finance act to fund other needs within the state's budget. Thus, repealing (this section) without voter prior voter approval is not contrary to the stated purpose of (TABOR)". (page 23)
  • "The taxpayers in these school districts (that have De-Bruced) have already approved the acceptable level of their tax burden, so the purpose of (TABOR) has already been met in those school districts to which the repeal would apply" (page 23)
  • "Removing the mill levy reduction requirement furthers the school finance policy goal of strengthening local control by regaining the balance between the state and local funding for school finance.  The Colorado Supreme Court has found that "utilizing local property taxation to partly finance Colorado's schools is rationally related to effectuating local control over public schools" (Page 15)
  • Since 1991, when the General Assembly adopted the language that requires the local mill levy to fall, "the balance in local share and state share funding for school finance has shifted from 57% local share and 43% state share for the 88/89 budget year to 36% local share and 64% state share for the FY 06/07 budget year. If the General Assembly does not repeal (the mill levy reduction language), the Joint Budget Committee Staff projects the balance for the FY 16/17 budget to be 29% local share and 71% state share". (Page 17)
  • "A school district's degree of local control is potentially weakened if the school district becomes more reliant on state funding for total program rather than on local property tax revenues - when state revenues constitute a greater percentage of a school district's revenues, the state may potentially exercise more control over a school district's operations." (Page 16)
  • "Repealing section 22-53-106(2)(a)(III), C.R.S. is necessary to reestablish a more equal balance between local share and state share funding for school finance and thereby continue to protect school districts' local control over instruction." (Page 17)
  • "The repeal of section 22-54-106(2)(a)(III) is arguably necessary for the General Assembly to comply with provisions of section 2 of article IX of the state constitution by reestablishing the balance between state and local shares of total program funding and protecting and enhancing local control." (page 22)