School Facilities Financing Working Group

Committee Decision Points

I . Long-Term Facilities Maintenance (aka Alternative Facilities):

Recommendation #1: Do we want to recommend:

1. Unlimited funding for all; or
2. Limited funding for all (e.g., maximum per student based on average for districts currently eligible for alternative facilities revenue, with hold-harmless for districts currently above the average, with rate indexed for inflation); or
3. Continuation of unlimited funding for big 25 and limited funding for others; or

4. Other___________________________

II. Uses of Revenue / Consolidation of Funding Streams

Recommendation # 2: Do we want to recommend:

1. Combining Health and Safety, Alternative Facilities and Deferred Maintenance into one funding stream;

2. Combining operating capital and building lease levy into one funding stream;

3. Expanding uses of building lease levy to include certain other facilities-related uses / financing mechanisms, but not as broad as uses of operating capital revenue (e.g., maintenance, remodeling/improvement of existing space or limited expansion up to 20%, regardless of financing mechanism, up to $162 / PU limit)

4. Combining all five of these programs into one funding stream;

5. Other_____________________________

III. Equalization:

Recommendation # 3: Do we want to recommend:

1. Lowering the threshold to qualify for debt service equalization;

2. Replacing the current two-tiered equalization system with a single tier equalized at a higher level;

3. Indexing equalizing factors to the state average ANTC / pupil.

4. Other_________________________________

IV. Facilities Grant Program

Recommendation # 4: Do we want to recommend:

1. Direct State Grant for:



________High-need districts (e.g., high debt service tax rate after equalization)

2. Super equalization tier for:



________High-need districts (e.g., high debt service tax rate after equalization)

3. Other_____________________________

V. Review and Comment

Recommendation # 5: Do we want to recommend:

1. Elimination of review and comment requirement for projects not requiring voter approval (e.g., projects funded entirely with alternative facilities / health & safety / deferred maintenance / lease levy ;/ operating capital revenue);
2. Increase in dollar threshold for review and comment (e.g., from $1.4 million to $2 million);
3. Reducing the amount of information required to be submitted by districts for a review and comment (see draft of revised list).

4. Other___________________________