NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Marquardt |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
797 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Impact Aid Revenue for |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
L. Baca |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
($2,830.0) See
Narrative |
Recurring |
GF |
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Conflicts with: HB 115, School Funding
Formula
HB 483,
HB
637, Allow
Relates
to Appropriation in the General Appropriation Act
LFC files
Responses
Received From
State
Department of Education (SDE)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Bill 797 amends
the Public School Finance Act and provides that school districts that have
military installations may retain 100% of their Impact Aid receipts received
for federally connected children.
Significant
Issues
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
If this bill is
enacted, school districts receiving Impact Aid that do not have military installations
within their borders, and non-P.L. 874 districts, would have the state support
provided to them reduced by $2,830.0, or the state would have to increase its
support to avoid reducing the flow of state revenue for support of public
schools. The bill does not indicate,
but, presumably, its provisions would become effective beginning fiscal year
2004. This loss in credits would be recurring. (See SDE’s Table 1,
attached.)
TECHNICAL ISSUES
In its analysis, the SDE makes three significant observations:
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Until the early 1950’s, funding of public schools was
considered a local responsibility and financing their activities relied almost
solely on local resources. At this
point, according to the Education Commission of the States (ECS), states became
more actively involved in public school finance although the use of state
resources remained minimal in most states.
State participation in funding public schools increased following the
early 1970’s Serrrano vs. Priest decision, which held
that the quality of a child’s education should not be determined by the accident
of his\her birth. This
Twenty years following the Serrano decision,
more than 25 states had been sued with the lawsuits claiming violations of
state constitutions that required uniform systems of public education. Not all
states sued were found in violation of state constitutions, but interest in
obtaining greater
state
support for public education has increased in most of the nation’s 50 states.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
1.
If this bill is adopted, will disequalization among
2.
Given current economic conditions, can
the state afford a $2,830.2 hit?
3.
What might happen if the state doesn’t
have funds to replace the $2,830.0 loss in credits?