OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS

Legislative Office Building, Room 5200

Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 240-0200

http: //www. cga. ct. gov/ofa

sSB-404

AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS EDUCATION GRANTS AND CHANGES TO THE STATUTES CONCERNING MAGNET SCHOOLS, VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE CENTERS AND THE CERTIFICATION OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION TEACHERS.

As Amended by Senate "A" (LCO 6478)

House Calendar No. : 562

Senate Calendar No. : 414

OFA Fiscal Note

State Impact:

Agency Affected

Fund-Effect

FY 09 $

FY 10 $

Education, Dept.

GF - See Below

See Below

See Below

Note: GF=General Fund

Municipal Impact:

Municipalities

Effect

FY 09 $

FY 10 $

Various Municipalities

See Below

See Below

See Below

Explanation

Section 1 of the bill results in a potential savings to certain regional school districts (grades 7 to 12 and 9 to 12) who have a reduced assessment for students enrolled in the region.

Section 2 of the bill adjusts the ECS phase-in for FY 09 in order to maintain total ECS spending within the level provided in the biennial budget. This change maintains town-by-town levels at those expected at the time of the original biennial budget enactment during the 2007 legislative session.

Section 3 of the bill adjusts the Priority School District (PSD) distribution for FY 09 in order to maintain total PSD spending within the level provided in the biennial budget. This change maintains town-by-town levels at those expected at the time of the original biennial budget enactment during the 2007 legislative session.

Section 4 and 35 of the bill alter the distribution of school readiness funding by utilizing actual program capacity rather than kindergarten enrollment and free and reduced price lunch data. This change alters the initial distribution of funds between eligible towns but does not alter the eventual expenditure in receiving towns as basing funds on kindergarten enrollment rather than capacity results in funds lapsing and/or being transferred later in the fiscal year to towns with actual capacity to utilize the funds. Additionally they allow for up to 2% of the amount provided within the appropriation for this program to be utilized by districts eligible for the competitive school readiness program. It is anticipated that the 2% would otherwise lapse and therefore this change does not alter grant expenditures by eligible PSDs.

Section 5 of the bill increases the per-child allowance for school readiness programs to $8,346. This does not alter state costs as funding for the program is provided within available appropriations.

Sections 6 to 12 and 14 implement the Sheff v. O'Neill stipulated agreement and allow the $9. 9 million provided in FY 09 for the Sheff settlement to be expended on the programs specified in these sections.

Section 13 increases the minimum budget requirement (MBR) beginning in FY 10. This does not alter state costs or local revenue but may change the distribution within towns between education and non-education expenditures.

Section 14 of the bill allows for the direct enrollment of magnet school students from any district without participation agreements. This may result in a cost to local and regional school districts as they would be required to pay tuition to the magnet schools for such students.

Section 15 has no fiscal impact.

Section 16 expands the grades for which the pilot program for computer-assisted writing may be utilized. This may result in a revenue gain to some districts as they may now choose to apply for a grant that they otherwise would not have. There is no fiscal impact on the state as the funding is provided within available appropriations.

Section 17 results in a potential cost to sending districts participating in RESC operated magnet school programs as tuition must increase to at least 75% of the difference between the per child cost of the magnet school and funding provided by the state. However the increase in the tuition is limited to a 10% increase per year. The actual phase-in to the full 75% requirement is anticipated to take between three to six years based on the current matrix of students and magnet school tuitions.

Section 18 results in a revenue gain to Bloomfield's interdistrict magnet as it continues their eligibility for state funding. Funding exists in the current biennial budget for this purpose as it was assumed that Bloomfield would have met eligibility without this legislation.

Sections 19 to 33 have no fiscal impact.

Section 34 provides that instead of lapsing any funds transferred to the State Department of Education (SDE) under the 20% ECS set-aside for school districts in need of improvement that remain unspent on June 30, 2008 to carry forward to, and remain available for spending in FY 09 for the same purpose.

Senate “A” (LCO 6478) struck the underlying bill and results in the fiscal impact described above.

The Out Years

The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would continue into the future subject to inflation.

The preceding Fiscal Impact statement is prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for the purposes of information, summarization and explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose.