Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears debate on SB 1473, a new state student funding formula targeting high‑need districts
Summary
Senate Bill 14-73 would create a new state student funding formula intended to target state assistance to districts with high need; the committee adopted a phased eligibility amendment and recommended the bill, 6–1.
Senate Bill 14-73 would create a new state student funding formula that combines a base support level with additional state assistance targeted at certain students and programs. Mason Holler, the committee's education research analyst, summarized the bill’s mechanics for the committee and said the formula: (1) adds a base support level and state additional assistance amounts; (2) sets per‑student amounts for preschool programs for children with disabilities, kindergarten through grade 8, and high school grades; (3) requires the new formula be used to determine funding for charter schools and allows eligible school districts to adopt it; and (4) recalculates Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) funding at 90% of the new formula rather than using the charter formula.
Holler said the bill restricts a district that elects the new formula from receiving School Facilities Oversight Board funding except for new facilities and from using property-tax generated funding for certain purposes (bonds, overrides, transportation revenue control limit). The bill also prescribes a tax-year 2024 qualifying tax rate and directs county school superintendents on levies for districts that use the new formula.
Sponsor and staff explained a 38‑page sponsor amendment that phases in eligibility by support-level ratio thresholds (90% in FY 2026, 80% in FY 2027, 70% in FY 2028, 60% in FY 2029 and 50% in FY 2030 or later). Several district superintendents and school board members testified in support, saying the bill addresses long-standing funding inequities in rural and high-growth districts where assessed valuation does not keep pace with enrollment growth. Testimony included elected officials, the Arizona Tax Research Association and district superintendents who urged support as a measured fix for inequities they argued otherwise could invite litigation or make overrides unworkable for districts with high student growth and low assessed valuation.
After testimony the committee adopted the amendment and returned the bill with a due‑pass recommendation, 6–1 in committee roll call.
Speakers who testified included: Mason Holler (Senate research analyst), Superintendent Rickert (Pima County, stated district-specific concerns), Rusty Taylor (Naco Elementary superintendent), Clint Colvin (school board president), and Kevin McCarthy (Arizona Tax Research Association). They described local fiscal stresses: low override passage rates, high assessed-valuation to support-level ratios, and limited local taxing capacity.
What it means: If enacted, the bill would give eligible school districts a route to higher state funding targeted to their student mix, reduce ESA funding relative to the new formula (calculated at 90%), and constrain some capital funding access for districts that elect the formula. The sponsor amendment phases in eligibility and thereby narrows the immediate fiscal exposure.
Provenance (transcript evidence): committee staff summary and sponsor amendment explanation (Mason Holler); public testimony from district leaders and Kevin McCarthy; committee roll call recorded at the end of the item.
