School District Reporting Additional Mill Levy Revenue
Summary
SB25-221 requires Colorado school districts to add a new annual reporting item related to additional mill levy revenue. Beginning with the 2025-26 budget year, each district must report the total amount of additional mill levy revenue it is authorized to collect and the amount it distributes to institute charter schools located within the district’s geographic boundaries, stated as a dollar amount.
The bill amends existing reporting law in section 22-2-113.8 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Current law already requires districts to report certain additional local property tax revenues and how much of those revenues are distributed directly to schools; this bill extends that framework to specifically capture distributions to institute charter schools. The measure is limited to reporting and does not itself change how mill levy revenue must be allocated.
Impact
The bill updates state education finance reporting requirements by adding a new disclosure obligation for school districts regarding additional mill levy revenue distributed to institute charter schools. It affects school districts that levy and distribute these local property tax revenues, and it gives the Colorado Department of Education and the public a clearer accounting of how much money is flowing to institute charter schools within district boundaries. The bill does not create a new funding source or mandate a new distribution formula; it primarily changes transparency and reporting under Title 22.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad bipartisan support and little opposition. The bill passed Senate Appropriations unanimously, cleared Senate third reading 29-0, passed House Appropriations 8-3, and then passed House third reading 62-1. No committee testimony is provided, but the strong floor votes indicate the measure was generally viewed as a modest, noncontroversial transparency bill.
Contention
Because the bill is narrowly focused on reporting, there is little visible contention in the record. Any disagreement likely centered on whether the new reporting requirement was necessary or burdensome for school districts, especially those that already track local revenue distributions. The lone House floor dissent and the three no votes in House Appropriations suggest some limited concern, but the context does not identify specific opponents or arguments.