Florida’s school districts raise more than $2 billion a year in property tax revenue for capital projects. For years, state lawmakers have tried to require them to share some of that money with charter schools. But they keep running into the same problem.
School districts say they can’t afford to share local property tax revenue with charters. They say much of the local money they raise for school facilities is tied up paying off bonds they used to finance past construction. Credit rating agencies have backed up this argument. They say splitting money equitably among districts and charters could destabilize districts’ finances.
The Florida House has hatched a new proposal intended to navigate these obstacles.
A bill released late Friday, and set to be discussed tomorrow by the House Education Appropriations Subcommittee, would require school districts to split their local property tax revenue with charter schools. But first, the state would deduct the amount of money each district has set aside to pay its construction debts. The remaining money would be shared among district and charter schools, based on the number of students enrolled. If lawmakers set aside charter school capital outlay funding in the state budget, that would offset the amount districts would be required to share with charters.
In short, charter schools would have a stable source of funding for buildings that doesn’t rely on year-to-year appropriations. But it wouldn’t cut into the money districts need to pay off construction debt.
A legislative staff analysis estimates the measure would raise about $147.9 million a year for charter schools, nearly double the $75 million that 556 charter schools currently share from the state budget.
To qualify for capital outlay funding — which can be used to pay for buildings, buses and other big-ticket purchases — a charter school would either have to serve a student population where more than 50 percent qualify for free or reduced-price lunches, or avoid consecutive school grades lower than a B.
Like its Senate counterpart, the House bill includes provisions designed to rein in profiteering by charter school landlords. If charter schools used state capital funding to pay for buildings, the buildings would have to be publicly owned, return to the local school board’s control if the charter school closes, or be owned by a company with no ties to the charter school organization.
The House approach would avoid the debate about tax increases that has complicated the Senate’s charter school funding efforts. But key members of the upper chamber have noted districts have less taxing authority than they did a decade ago, and many of their construction budgets are already spread thin. In other words, there are some facets of the facilities funding debate the House bill doesn’t address. But it suggests lawmakers are moving closer to a solution for charter schools.
