On Jan. 13, the Colorado State Senate introduced a bill that would require school districts across the state to distribute funds equally to all schools, including charter schools. Sen. Owen Hill and House Rep. Lang Sias sponsored the bill, known as Senate Bill 17-061.On Feb. 15, the senate education committee passed the bill, and the full senate will hear it around the beginning of March, Hill said.According to the billís text, ìBeginning in the 2017-2018 budget year, the bill requires a school district to distribute revenue it receives from ongoing local property tax mill levies equally, on a per-student basis, to the school district charter schools.îPublic schools in Colorado receive funding from two sources: state funding and local funding, largely through property taxes based on the mill levy rate, Hill said. ìThe state sets a base rate for each district to provide per kids,î he said. ìThe mill levy money is being shared and all the state constitution language says that money is to provide for public schools within the district. But many districts are not sharing that money with public charter schools.îHill said this funding disparity could result in students within the same household receiving different amounts for their education, based simply on the school they attend, even though both attend public schools. Technically, not sharing the mill levy funds equitably is a violation of the state constitution and a violation of the trust of the voters, he said.Sias said he spent a time getting educated about how schools are funded, and learned how prevalent it is in Colorado not to share mill levy funds. ìThere are dramatic positive effects when the funds are shared,î he said. ìI looked at the language of the mill levies, and there is no explanation of the fact that some public school children are going to be cut out of receiving that money.îAccording to the bill, districts do not have to share mill levy funds collected for a specific purpose, like funding a program or for capital improvements designated in the mill levy language. Those funds are considered restricted revenue, the bill states.ìWe have broad bipartisan support in both chambers,î Hill said. ìPeople across the state and the political spectrum recognize how important this is, and we are cautiously optimistic that this will move forward.î
