You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. Please enable scripts and reload this page.
Turn on more accessible mode
Turn off more accessible mode
Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Turn off Animations
Turn on Animations
Board of Education
Vision, Mission and Goals
New to BVSD?
Jobs @ BVSD
Online Schools & Programs
School Age Care
BVSD Web Store
Email Sign in
Google K-5 Sign in
IC Educator/Staff Portal
IC Student/Parent Portal
BVSD Service Request
Maintenance Work Request
Security & Safety
Communications & Translation Services
Noticias del BVSD
Literature Distribution Requests
Open Records Requests
BV22 Educational TV
BVSD Legislative Update
April 8, 2016
BVSD Legislative Bulletin
The lead article for this week focuses upon the 2016-17 proposed amendments to the Colorado School Finance Act. Below is an excellent summary (with a noted update at the end) by Chalkbeat COLORADO reporter Todd Engdahl.
BVSD Communications and Legislative Policy Director
School funding bill off to rocky start after complaints of “ambush”
By Todd Engdahl, Chalkbeat COLORADO, March 28, 2016
Everybody likes the fact that the proposed 2016-17 school finance bill doesn’t increase the K-12 funding shortfall, but the measure’s rushed introduction Monday[3/28] ruffled a lot of feathers.
The measure would allocate $6.4 billion for basic school operations in 2016-17, up from $6.2 billion this school year. The bill would hold the K-12 funding shortfall, often called the negative factor, at $831 million, the same level as this year. See the chart at the bottom of this article for the impact on individual districts.
The bill is seen as modest good news for school districts, who’ve faced tight funding since 2009, when declines in state revenues forced substantial cuts. The state constitution requires base K-12 funding – about 75 percent of total support – to increase every year by inflation and enrollment. The bill does that.
Holding the shortfall to $831 million is considered a victory because projections made before the session convened put that figure as high as $905 million.
The bill would set average per-pupil funding at $7,424, up from this year’s $7,312.
The bill’s rushed introduction left members of the House Education Committee scrambling to understand it when they convened only about 90 minutes after House Bill 16-1442 [actually HB 1422] was formally introduced.
“To rush this most important bill through the process” was unfair to members and to the state’s school districts, said Rep. Jim Wilson, R-Salida.
Sen. Owen Hill, whose Senate Education Committee will hear the bill later, was more blunt. “I was shocked. … This ambush was unacceptable,” arguing that House members were ambushed because they faced with voting on a bill they didn’t had time to review.
Wilson and a couple of other GOP members harped on the issue throughout the 80-minute hearing, to the irritation of chair Rep. Brittany Pettersen, D-Lakewood.
Bill sponsor Rep. Millie Hamner said the measure came up when it did because it needs to move in tandem with the main state budget bill, also introduced Monday. The budget and companion measures, including school finance, were finished over the weekend, so Monday was the first opportunity to introduce them. The Dillon Democrat is chair of the Joint Budget Committee.
She said the school measure is “a bill we should all be cheering about.”
Her cosponsor, Republican Rep. Bob Rankin of Carbondale, also tried to downplay the complaints. “I don’t think there are many major issues we can’t deal with despite the short notice.” He noted that the JBC had to trim other parts of the budget like transportation and Medicaid in order to set school funding at the proposed levels.
Democrats control the House, so a few irritated Republicans aren’t likely to change the bill much. The GOP-majority Senate may be more troublesome for the bill.
Hill said rushed House consideration of the bill short-changed public review and testimony. He indicated Senate Education will take a longer look at the bill and likely will consider amendments to expand parent choice. Hill was mad enough about the situation that he sent out an email blast criticizing what the House did.
The House panel spent a lot of time on two secondary elements of the bill.
The first of those would change current state law that sets minimum funding for very small districts at 50 students, even if they have a smaller number of actual students. The bill proposes a system under which the floor would be 30 students for the very smallest districts.
The change could be a big blow to the 19-student Agate district on the eastern plains. Hamner proposed an amendment that would delay the cut for Agate by a year, but the committee voted that down.
Another section of the bill would modestly increase funding for a handful of districts that have between 4,000 and 5,000 students. Some of the affected districts are in Hamner and Rankin’s House districts. Rep. Kevin Priola, R-Henderson, said that “benefits the sponsors, which we’ll discuss on the floor.”
The committee passed the finance bill 9-2. It goes Tuesday to the House Appropriations Committee, along with the main budget, House Bill 16-1405. That hearing should be a formality, but finance bill debate on the floor later this week could be lively.
(NOTE: The state House of Representatives gave final passage to HB 1422 on Monday, April 5. It has now been introduced in the state Senate and assigned to the Senate Education and Senate Appropriations committees.)
covers PK-20 education issues throughout Colorado including one of the most in-depth and accurate PK-12 daily news to be found anywhere during the session.
This week, BVSD Communications draws your particular attention to a March 29, 2016, article by
Todd Engdahl -
Here’s how Colorado’s schools and universities could see another $90 million in revenue next year.
Policy Matters, LLC BVSD Bill Tracker
During each regular session (January - May) of the Colorado General Assembly, the Boulder Valley School District is represented on a day-to-day basis by Tanya Kelly-Bowry and Ernestine Mondragon of the firm Policy Matters, LLC. They regularly communicate with BVSD Superintendent Bruce Messinger and Director of Communications & Legislative Policy Briggs Gamblin. This is a link to an online bill tracking system for legislation being monitored by our district.
2016 BVSD Legislative Platform
Each year the Boulder Valley Board of Education approves a legislative platform that sets the district’s legislative priorities and guides the BVSD contract lobbying firm, Policy Matters, LLC, led by veteran lobbyists Tanya Kelly-Bowry and Ernestine Mondragon. BVSD’s effort is overseen by Superintendent Bruce Messinger and Communications and Legislative Policy Director Briggs Gamblin.
Understanding Colorado School Finance
Colorado supporters of PK-12 public education have found nonprofit
Great Education Colorado
to be a valuable resource both for important factual information concerning state funding of Colorado public schools and advocacy opportunities if interested. For the BVSD Weekly Legislative Bulletin's purposes, our focus will be setting context especially for those readers not yet familiar with the factors involved in Colorado state government's complex funding of public education across the state's 178 school districts. Colorado PK-12 Public Education Funding -
Frequently Asked Questions.
Contact your legislators
A list of legislators whose districts are wholly or partially within the boundaries of BVSD.
Legislative Update archive
View the Legislative Update homepage for access to past issues. If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at
Education Center / 6500 Arapahoe, Boulder, CO 80303 / 303-447-1010
About this Site
© 2016 Boulder Valley School District