HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20120619Aspen Education Foundation
Sales Tax Initiative
Update
June 19, 2012
Sales Tax Initiative
•RETT suggestion has been eliminated due
to conflict with Bruce Amendment
•Sales tax increase at Aspen City or Pitkin
County level will be recommended
•Seek to generate $1,750,000 per year as
a result if sales tax increase…0.35% at
City and 0.25% at County
•Ballot language to be finalized by August
15, 2012
Sales Tax Initiative
•Sunset provision set at five years –
accountability
•Potential to increase annual sales tax
rebate amount?
•Proceeds collected by city/county and
remitted to Aspen Education Fund
Aspen Education Fund
•Modeled after Steamboat Education Fund
•Created in 1992 after voter approval
•Has been extended three time since
•Generates between $2M - $3M per year
•Grants to Steamboat School District
•Expanded to fund certain programs at
South Routt and Hayden school districts
Aspen Education Fund – Proposed
Governance
•Administered with AEF resources
•11 member independent board
•5 members of ASD Board
•6 additional elected members, including
Chair
–Proxies on August ballot
–Elections in Spring 2013
BASIC SHOOL FINANCE
TOTAL PROGRAM
•TOTAL PROGRAM CALCULATION
–Per pupil revenue x Pupil Count
–$9,978.98 x 1657.1 pupils = $16,536,164
–Apply State Negative factor to Total Program of 16.11%
•TOTAL PROGRAM SOURCES OF FUNDS (2012-13)
–Property taxes = $11,409,136
–Specific Ownership Taxes (vehicle registrations) = $461,705
–State Equalization Funds = $4,392,356 if fully funded
–State Equalization Funds after applying Negative Factor =
$1,727,886
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
•Voter approved mill levy overrides
–Hold harmless – allowed with passage of School Finance Act in 1994
–Overrides as passed in 1998, 2001, 2005, 2010
–Transportation and technology override for 3 years - passed in 2008 – ended in 2011
•Categorical programs funded by State
–ELPA, Gifted & Talented, Special Education, Vocational Education, Transportation
•Local grants and donations
–Aspen Education Foundation, Valley Partnership for Drug Prevention, Aspen Valley Community Foundation, and other individuals
•Other miscellaneous sources
–Tuition, interest income, building rentals, etc
School Finance Formula Factors
•Base funding $5,831.99
•Cost of living factor 1.650
•District size factor 1.0876
•Personnel cost factor 85.99%
•Non-personnel costs 14.01%
Subtotal $9,888.12
•At Risk factor 90.86
PPR $9,978.98
Funding Reductions History
Budgeted Projected
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Funded Pupil Count 1,597.3 1,616.3 1,648.7 1,645.8 1,657.1
Per Pupil Revenue $ 9,010.42 $ 9,386.45 $ 9,423.93 $ 9,627.82 $ 9,978.98
Total Program-Fully Funded $ 14,392,343.87 $ 15,171,319.14 $ 15,537,233.39 $ 15,845,466.16 $ 16,536,164.28
Negative Factor -0.14% -1.37% -13.27% -16.11%
Reduction to State Equalization Funds ($20,005.48) ($158,850.00) ($213,028.00) ($2,102,693.36) ($2,664,469.93)
Net Total Program 14,372,338.39 15,012,469.14 15,324,205.39 13,742,772.80 13,871,694.35
Net Per Pupil Revenue $ 8,997.90 $ 9,288.17 $ 9,294.72 $ 8,350.21 $ 8,371.07
Reduction to Categorical Funding ($326,673.00)
Assessed Valuation 2,552,953,670 3,355,435,658 3,374,848,280 2,553,629,900 2,585,932,797
Base Finance Act Mill Levy 4.836 4.316 4.412 4.412 4.412
Property Tax Revenue 12,346,083.95 14,482,060.30 14,889,830.61 11,266,615.12 11,409,135.50
Specific Ownership Tax 541,312.00 530,410.00 434,369.00 448,256.81 461,704.51
State Equalization Funds 1,451,113.00 - - 2,027,765.61 1,727,886.22
Total Program Revenue 14,338,508.95 15,012,470.30 15,324,199.61 13,742,637.54 13,598,726.23
Voter Approved Overrides Mill Levy 1.279 0.973 1.368 1.808 1.7854
Override Property Tax Revenue 3,265,227.74 3,264,838.90 4,616,792.45 4,616,962.86 4,616,924.42
Projected Funding Shortfalls
ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT
2012-13 PROJECTED FUNDING SHORTFALLS
AS OF JUNE 4 2012
2011-12 2012-13 CHANGES 2013-14 CHANGES 2014-15 CHANGES 2015-16
REVENUES
LOCAL 15,352,098 15,329,521 187,042 15,516,563 - 15,516,563 374,084 15,890,647
STATE 2,522,572 2,533,035 - 2,533,035 95,313 2,628,348 95,313 2,723,662
FEDERAL 156,055 277,043 277,043 277,043 277,043
18,030,725 18,139,599 18,326,641 18,421,954 18,891,352
EXPENDITURES
DISTRICT 4,340,625 4,524,229 149,817 4,674,046 150,134 4,824,180 150,150 4,974,329
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5,053,852 5,053,852 5,053,852 5,053,852 5,053,852
MIDDLE SCHOOL 4,050,190 4,050,190 4,050,190 4,050,190 4,050,190
HIGH SCHOOL 5,150,213 5,150,213 5,150,213 5,150,213 5,150,213
education increases 12,505 12,505 12,505 12,505
furlough (62,694) (62,694)
step or raise 310,838 - 310,838 310,838 310,838
18,594,880 19,039,133 19,188,950 19,401,778 19,551,927
NET SHORTFALL (564,155) (899,534) (862,309) (979,823) (660,576)
Co
m
par
e
F
Y
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
a
n
d
F
Y
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
p
Ac
t
u
a
l
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
w
i
t
h
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
*
RE
V
I
S
E
D
20
1
2
-
1
3
Re
q
u
e
s
t
Change
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
Ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
F
a
c
t
o
r
(G
r
o
w
t
h
&
I
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
$6
,
0
0
6
,
8
6
1
,
9
6
5
$
6
,
2
8
6
,
1
2
8
,
4
8
5
$
2
7
9
,
2
6
6
,
5
2
0
Ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
F
a
c
t
o
r
(7
7
4
,
4
1
4
,
3
4
2
)
(
1
,
1
0
2
,
0
9
4
,
9
1
0
)
(
3
2
7
,
6
8
0
,
5
6
8
)
Re
v
i
s
e
d
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$5
2
3
2
4
4
7
6
2
3
$5
1
8
4
0
3
3
5
7
5
($48414048)
Re
v
i
s
e
d
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$5
,23
2
,44
7
,62
3
$5
,18
4
,03
3
,57
5
($48,414,048)
Ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
F
a
c
t
o
r
-12
9
4
%
-17
6
0
%
-466%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
12
.94
%
17
.60
%
4.66%
Ave
r
a
g
e
P
e
r
P
u
p
i
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
$6
,
4
7
4
.
2
4
$
6
,
3
4
3
.
7
7
(
$
1
3
0
.
4
7
)
*S
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
St
a
t
e
o
f
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
Ga
p
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
r
e
s
c
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
an
d
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Gap
Th
e
a
c
t
u
a
l
fu
n
d
e
d
T
o
t
a
l
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
h
a
s
de
c
l
i
n
e
d
72
%
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
$6
,
0
0
0
.
0
in
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
represents negative factor of 17.6%
de
c
l
i
n
e
d
7.2%
fr
o
m
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
i
n
20
0
9
-
1
0
.
$4
,
0
0
0
.
0
$2
,
0
0
0
.
0
$3
,
0
0
0
.
0
$1
,
0
0
0
.
0
20
0
8
-
0
9
Ac
t
u
a
l
20
0
9
-
1
0
Ac
t
u
a
l
20
1
0
-
1
1
Ac
t
u
a
l
20
1
1
-
1
2
Ac
t
u
a
l
*
2012-13 REVISED BUDGET REQUEST
Fu
l
l
y
F
u
n
d
e
d
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$5
,
3
5
4
.
8
$
5
,
7
1
7
.
3
$
5
,
8
2
2
.
3
$
6
,
0
0
6
.
9
$
6
,
2
8
6
.
1
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
L
e
s
s
R
e
s
c
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
$5
3
4
7
3
$5
5
8
6
1
$5
4
3
9
7
$5
2
3
2
4
$51840
$0
0
0
.
0
*S
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
L
e
s
s
R
e
s
c
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
/L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
s
$5
,34
7
.3
$5
,58
6
.1
$5
,43
9
.7
$5
,23
2
.4
$5,184.0
Page 1of 1
6/14/2012http://www.greateducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fundinggraphic.png
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE
Community Forum for Civil Discourse
Reweaving the civic fabric...
A diverse group of community leaders has been working with the Aspen Institute and
experts in civic engagement on planning a community-wide initiative that will foster
civility in our public discourse. Based on the feedback received, the Aspen Institute has
agreed to convene a Community Forum to study the issues, research solutions, and
produce recommendations and action steps to develop a long-term commitment within -
our community to the principles of civility. A significant amount of time and money has
been dedicated to this effort thus far, and there is a consensus of strong support among
those who have learned about the project. Funds are being raised currently, and the
initiative will officially begin in the fall of 2012.
The Issue:
Many believe that Aspen and the region are suffering from a climate of incivility that is
wreaking havoc on the civic, political and business health of the community. With the
rise of incivility, many citizens opt out of participation in their own community's future.
Others resort to vitriol. Both damage the democratic process.
The Goal:
Social scientists and experts in community problem solving observe that when public
debate is civil and respectful, democracy flourishes, communities solve seemingly
intractable problems, and citizens are healthier, more productive and prosperous. -
Therefore, the goal of the Community Forum for Civil Discourse is to identify and
operationalize tools and techniques that foster a cultural shift toward more civil and
effective community discourse. In essence, our campaign slogan could be "I get your
point, I disagree, Let's go have a beer." In all seriousness, this is an important endeavor
that will have a positive impact on our community that can potentially be summed up and
accomplished with some levity.
■
The Process:
We have had several meetings with community members and experts to gather diverse
' viewpoints on the issues, the process, and the desired outcomes. The purpose of the
Community Forum is to more formally gather opinions, research what works, and find
long-term solutions. Appeals for civility are not effective responses. Instead, we will
seek tangible solutions that address root causes of anger, frustration, and distrust, and
learn from experts and those in other cities who have found solutions that have been
successfully used. The Community Forum for Civil Discourse will examine the problem,
hear from experts, and develop a proactive strategy to reweave the civic fabric of our
community. The Community Forum is an Aspen Institute program overseen by its
administration. The Institute will manage revenues and expenses. Donations to this
initiative will be given to the Aspen Institute and will be tax deductible to the full extent
of the law.
Community Forum for Civil Discourse
Page 2 of 2
The Outcome:
It is imperative to ensure that our overarching goal is achievable and that we have
mechanisms in place to measure results and affect positive change. We will offer
tangible tools and resources so that our community not only embraces the need for
civility but that a commitment to civility becomes a sustainable part of our culture for the
foreseeable future. As the Community Forum convenes and considers solutions, it may
choose to deploy resources such as a civility tool kit, a code of ethics for citizens, public
officials and those seeking office, and interactive programs to inform and engage the
community at large.
History:
Since 1995, the Aspen Institute Community Forum has worked effectively to identify
emerging issues and existing trends that affect the long-term economic, social, and
environmental well-being of the Roaring Fork Valley, and to recommend policies and
solutions that address those issues and trends. All sessions are moderated and conducted
in a safe,environment without attribution by the media. Participants are selected and
approved by the Aspen Institute to ensure all sides are represented, which increases the
potential that community leaders will adopt Forum recommendations.
The Community Forum has sponsored task forces on such topics as healthcare,
communications and technology, affordable housing, the Pitkin County Home Rule
Charter, youth, and economic sustainability. Also, it sponsored an initiative to improve
election-campaign civility.
Who is involved so far?
Initial discussions have involved the following people: Amy Margerum, Terry Hale,
Helen Klanderud, John Sarpa, BJ Adams, Brooke Peterson, Michael Kinsley, George
Newman, Nina Eisenstat, Chris Gates, Stan Clauson and Cristal Logan.
Additional information:
For questions or to make a contribution, please contact Cristal Logan at
cristal.logan@aspeninst.org or 970.544.7929.
•
Summer 2012