Previous  Next

22-54-102. Legislative declaration - statewide applicability - intergovernmental agreements

Text

(1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that this article is enacted in furtherance of the general assemblys duty under section 2 of article IX of the state constitution to provide for a thorough and uniform system of public schools throughout the state; that a thorough and uniform system requires that all school districts and institute charter schools operate under the same finance formula; and that equity considerations dictate that all districts and institute charter schools be subject to the expenditure and maximum levy provisions of this article. Accordingly, the provisions of this article concerning the financing of public schools for budget years beginning on and after July 1, 1994, shall apply to all school districts and institute charter schools organized under the laws of this state.

(2) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that in enacting this article it has adopted a formula for the support of schools for the 1994-95 budget year and budget years thereafter; however, the adoption of such formula in no way represents a commitment on the part of the general assembly concerning the level of total funding for schools for the 1995-96 budget year or any budget year thereafter.

 

(3) (a) Nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit local governments from cooperating with school districts through intergovernmental agreements to fund, construct, maintain, or manage capital construction projects or other facilities as set forth in section 22-45-103 (1)(c)(I)(A) or (1)(c)(I)(D), including, but not limited to, swimming pools, playgrounds, or ball fields, as long as funding for such projects is provided solely from a source of local government revenue that is otherwise authorized by law except impact fees or other similar development charges or fees.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) to the contrary, nothing in this subsection (3) shall be construed to:

(I) Limit or restrict a countys power to require the reservation or dedication of sites and land areas for schools or the payment of moneys in lieu thereof pursuant to section 30-28-133 (4)(a), C.R.S., or to limit a local governments ability to accept and expend impact fees or other similar development charges or fees contributed voluntarily on or before December 31, 1997, to fund the capital projects of school districts according to the terms of agreements voluntarily entered into on or before June 4, 1996, between all affected parties;

(II) Repealed.

(III) Grant authority to local governments to require the reservation or dedication of sites and land areas for schools or the payment of moneys in lieu thereof; however, the prohibition on impact fees or other similar development charges or fees contained in this subsection (3) shall not be construed to restrict the authority of any local government to require the reservation or dedication of sites and land areas for schools or the payment of moneys in lieu thereof if such local government otherwise has such authority granted by law.

(4) If the December 2015 revenue forecast prepared by the legislative council staff estimates that the amount of local property tax revenues that will be available to districts for the 2015-16 budget year will be greater than the amount estimated in the December 2014 revenue forecast, it is the intent of the general assembly, through the supplemental appropriations process during the 2016 regular legislative session, to maintain and not reduce state appropriations for school finance funding after consideration of other forecast changes, including changes in the number of pupils and at-risk pupils enrolled, the inflation rate, and the expected state education fund revenues.

History

History.
Source: L. 94: Entire article added with relocations, p. 779, 2, effective April 27. L. 96: (3) added, p. 1802, 29, effective June 4; (3) amended, p. 1859, 1, effective June 5. L. 2000: (3)(a) amended, p. 520, 6, effective August 2. L. 2004: (1) amended, p. 1636, 41, effective July 1. L. 2006: (3)(b)(II) repealed, p. 611, 39, effective August 7. L. 2015: (4) added, (SB 15-267), ch. 295, p. 1203, 5, effective June 5.

Annotations

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For comment, School Impact Fees in Colorado: Gone, but Hopefully Not Forgotten, see 70 U. Colo. L. Rev. 257 . For comment, Lessons to be Learned: Taxpayers for Public Education v. Douglas County School District and the Flaws of the Douglas County Choice Scholarship Program, see 96 Denv. L. Rev. 145 (2018).

The public school finance act (Act) features no explicit remedies or enforcement scheme. Taxpayers Pub. Educ. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch., 2015 CO 50, 351 P.3d 461, cert. granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Colorado supreme court for further consideration in light of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2012, 198 L. Ed. 2d 551 (2017), U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2327, 198 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2017).

School age children and their parents are within the class of persons intended to be benefitted by the Act.Taxpayers Pub. Educ. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch., 2015 CO 50, 351 P.3d 461, cert. granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Colorado supreme court for further consideration in light of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2012, 198 L. Ed. 2d 551 (2017), U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2327, 198 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2017).

But nothing in the Act suggests that the general assembly intended to allow private parties to redress violations of the statute in court. Taxpayers Pub. Educ. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch., 2015 CO 50, 351 P.3d 461, cert. granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Colorado supreme court for further consideration in light of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2012, 198 L. Ed. 2d 551 (2017), U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2327, 198 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2017).

The Act manifests the general assemblys intent that the state board, not private citizens, be responsible for ensuring its lawful implementation. Taxpayers Pub. Educ. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch., 2015 CO 50, 351 P.3d 461, cert. granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Colorado supreme court for further consideration in light of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2012, 198 L. Ed. 2d 551 (2017), U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2327, 198 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2017).

Private citizens and taxpayers lack standing, therefore, to challenge a school districts scholarship program under the Act.Taxpayers Pub. Educ. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch., 2015 CO 50, 351 P.3d 461, cert. granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Colorado supreme court for further consideration in light of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2012, 198 L. Ed. 2d 551 (2017), U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2327, 198 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2017).

The legislatures recognition in subsection (3) that authorized local sources of revenue may be used to fund capital construction projects constitutes a clarification of existing law rather than a modification thereof and shall be given effect. County Commrs of Douglas County v. Bainbridge, 929 P.2d 691 (Colo. 1996).

Voluntary contributions may be made for schools, either through an enforceable agreement entered into before July 1, 1996, or with a contribution to be made before December 31, 1997. County Commrs of Douglas County v. Bainbridge, 929 P.2d 691 (Colo. 1996).