Colorado § 22-54-102 - Statewide applicability - intergovernmental agreements - legislative declaration.

§ 22-54-102. Statewide applicability - intergovernmental agreements - legislative declaration.

(1) The general assembly finds and declares that this article 54 is enacted in furtherance of the general assembly's 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 54. Accordingly, the provisions of this article 54 concerning the financing of public schools apply to all school districts and institute charter schools organized under the laws of this state.

(2) (a) The general assembly further finds and declares that:

(I) A thorough and uniform system of public education creates a learning environment in which all learners are civically engaged; physically, socially, and emotionally healthy; competent academic scholars; and, upon graduation, ready to contribute productively to the economy and prepared for a rapidly changing world;

(II) A world-class public education learning environment is critical to meeting the workforce demands for Colorado's thriving and dynamic economy;

(III) The changing realities of Colorado's economy demand that students be agile learners able to continuously learn, adapt, and shift into new roles by developing critical thinking, collaboration, and problem-solving skills;

(IV) The needs of the state require that all students, including those who are underserved or face significant challenges in meeting Colorado's graduation guidelines, complete high school and are ready for career or postsecondary education;

(V) Colorado's total program formula, pursuant to section 22-54-104, drastically underfunds Colorado's most historically underserved students, including at-risk students, English language learners, and students with special needs. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the achievement gap between these students and their peers has grown exponentially. Research shows that directing additional funding to these students bolsters their academic outcomes.

(VI) Colorado's total program formula, pursuant to section 22-54-104, has not been significantly updated since 1994. As the general assembly commits to fully buying down the budget stabilization factor, there is an opportune moment to modernize the total program formula to better meet the needs of students, educators, communities, and schools.

(VII) In the years since this article 54 was originally enacted in 1994, constitutional provisions, statutory requirements, public expectations, and student demographics have placed greater demands on Colorado's public education learning environment; and

(VIII) Challenges to recruit and retain educators and school leaders, and impediments to beneficial innovation, continue to threaten Colorado's public education learning environment.

(b) To provide each child in this state with a high-quality public education, the general assembly finds and declares that Colorado's public school finance formula must be redesigned and modernized to:

(I) Prioritize equity by focusing on individual student needs, including prioritized funding for students experiencing poverty, students with special education needs, and students who are English language learners;

(II) Recognize and adjust funding for differences among school districts and public schools related to size, remoteness, and cost of living;

(III) Promote greater understanding of public education funding for policymakers, educators, community members, families, and students by creating transparency and simplicity in the school finance formula calculation; and

(IV) Responsibly phase in a new total program formula over a period of time so that it is sustainable, and allow school districts and schools an amount of time necessary to adjust to the phase-in.

(3) The general assembly finds and declares that in enacting this article 54 it has adopted a formula for the support of schools; however, the adoption of the formula in no way is a commitment on the part of the general assembly concerning the level of total funding for schools.

(4) (a) This article 54 does not prohibit local governments from cooperating with 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, if funding for the 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 subsection (4)(a) of this section to the contrary, this subsection (4) does not:

(I) Limit or restrict a county's power to require the reservation or dedication of sites and land areas for schools or the payment of money in lieu thereof pursuant to section 30-28-133 (4)(a); and

(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 money; however, the prohibition on impact fees or other similar development charges or fees contained in this subsection (4) does not restrict the authority of any local government to require the reservation or dedication of sites and land areas for schools or the payment of money if the local government otherwise has the authority granted by law.

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. L. 2021: (5) added, (SB 21-268), ch. 222, p. 1187, § 26, effective June 11. L. 2024: Entire section amended, (HB 24-1448), ch. 236, p. 1480, § 2, effective May 23.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For comment, "School Impact Fees in Colorado: Gone, but Hopefully Not Forgotten", see 70 U. Colo. L. Rev. 257 (1998). 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. 449 (2017), 582 U.S. 951 (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. 449 (2017), 582 U.S. 951 (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. 449 (2017), 582 U.S. 951 (2017).

The Act manifests the general assembly's 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. 449 (2017), 582 U.S. 951 (2017).

Private citizens and taxpayers lack standing, therefore, to challenge a school district's 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. 449 (2017), 582 U.S. 951 (2017).

The legislature's 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 Comm'rs 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 Comm'rs of Douglas County v. Bainbridge, 929 P.2d 691 (Colo. 1996).