I 32352 EN STRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF STATE OF OKLAHOMA) OKLAHOMA PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL 1' RREN ASSOCIATION, an Oklahoma not-for?pro?t corporation, RICK A COURT CLERK hf! 'ff Pla1nt1 ?v LQ8147 W1 3 3 i i VS. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Defendant. EMERGENCY PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMES NOW Plaintiff, Oklahoma Public Charter School Association, an Oklahoma not?for-pro?t corporation (?Plaintiff?), and for their claims against Defendant, State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma State Board of Education (?State Board of Education? or ?Defendant?) (collectively, Plaintiff and Defendant referred to as, ?Parties?), states and alleges: 1. Oklahoma Public Charter School Association is a non-pro?t corporation doing business and representing constituent members of the association operating and managing public charter schools in the State of Oklahoma, including in Oklahoma County under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. 2. The State Board of Education is the governing body of the Oklahoma public school system and is in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 3. Venue is proper in this Court in that a signi?cant part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma and Defendant is located herein. INTRODUCTION 4. This Emergency Petition presents two fundamental questions of law requiring the Court to interpret the Oklahoma School Code (the ?Code?), 70 0.8. ?1-101, et. seq. and the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act (the 70 0.8. ?3-130, et. seq. The two questions are: (1) Is the intent of the Legislature, as re?ected in the Code, for public schools to be equitably funded within the same tax base? and (2) Should charter schools be treated like school districts within the same tax base for funding purposes? In considering these questions, the Court is advised of the basic legal. principles applicable to statutory interpretation. 5. The ?rst principle is that statutory construction presents a question of law. See Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7, 85 P.3d 841. Second, if the legislative intent is clear from the plain language of the statute, the Court should apply the plain language of the statute as there is no room for statutory construction. See Cooper v. State ex rel. Dept. ofPublic Safety, 1996 OK 49, 917 P.2d 466. Third, where the statutory language is ambiguous or uncertain, a construction should be applied to avoid absurdities. See Cox v. Dawson, 1996 OK 11, 911 P.2d 272; see also TXO Production Corp. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm 1992 OK 39, 829 P.2d 964. In resolving an ambiguity in a statute, the Court should look to the various provisions of the relevant legislative scheme to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent and the public policy underlying that intent. See Wilhoit v. State, 2009 OK 83, 226 P.3d 682. Fourth, statutes are interpreted. to attain their purpose and to champion the broad public policy purposes underlying them. See World Pub. Co. v. Miller, 2001 OK 49, 32 P.3d 829. Fifth, legislative intent controls statutory interpretation, and said intent is ascertained from the whole act considering its general purpose and objective considering relevant portions together to give full force and effect to each. See United General Contractors, v. Campbell, 2010 OK APP 10, 231 P.3d 703. 6. With speci?c regard to the Code, it provides that any section or part of the Oklahoma School Code is found to be ambiguous or otherwise subject to more than one interpretation, such section shall. be liberally construed to the extent that the general. purpose of the entire Code and of public education may be advanced.? See 70 0.8. ?l-103. 7. Public schools in Oklahoma receive periodic payments for the various sources of revenues that provide their funding. Generally, funding for public schools are distributed starting in August of each year based, in part, on the actions (or inactions) of Defendant.1 Plaintiff?s member charter schools begin classes in August or September for the 2017?18 school year. Therefore, if this litigation is not addressed in an expedited manner, Plaintiff?s schools will continue to suffer harm resulting from inequitable funding, which is detrimental to the children of Oklahoma attending public charter schools. This Petition is an emergency as revenues are being allocated and apportioned for the 2017-18 school year, and the start of said school year is fast approaching. 8. The sources of revenue that are at issue in this litigation are Local and County Sources (?Local Revenue?) and State Sources (?State In fact, the primary source of revenue for charter schools presently is the state aid allocation. For the 2014-15 ?scal year, the state aid allocation comprised only 45% of the total Local Revenue and State Revenue.3 9. Principal sources of Local Revenue are: general fund levies; building fund levies; County 4-mill levy; sinking fund levy; county apportionment; and other local miscellaneous revenues. One Local Revenue source at issue in this litigation is the 15-mill County Levy, which is authorized by Article X, Section 9(a) of the Oklahoma Constitution that 1 See Oklahoma School Finance, Technical Assistance Document, Financial Services Division, Revised February 2016 (the ?School Finance Document?), pp. 12-13, attached as Exhibit 2 1d. at p. l. 3 Id. provides for no less than ?ve (5) mills to be apportioned for school purposes. A second source of Local Revenue is the County 4-mill levy, which is authorized by Article X, Section 9(b) of the Oklahoma Constitution that provides for the apportionment to the schools of the county by the county treasurer based on the legal average daily attendance for the preceding school year as certi?ed by Defendant.4 10. The principal sources of state-dedicated revenues are: gross production tax; motor vehicle collections; (0) rural electri?cation association tax; and state school land earnings. Each of these state dedicated sources of revenue are at issue in this litigation and should be proportionately shared with public charter schools.5 11. The disparity in school funding is evident from the most recently published Annual Report on Oklahoma schools. According to Defendant?s report, the total revenues received by the Oklahoma City Public School District less federal funds was $242,502,928. The revenue per Capita by weighted ADM was $3,588 per pupil funding).6 Whereas, ASTEC charter school located within the boundaries of OKCPS has a total revenue received less federal funds of $661,095. The revenue per Capita by weighted ADM was $501 per pupil funding). The charter school received approximately $3,087 less per student.7 12. A comparison of. Tulsa Public Schools with a charter school in the TPS boundary also shows a similar disparity. For example, the total revenue for TPS less the federal funds for the 2013?14 ?scal year was $257,728,210. The revenue per Capita by weighted ADM was $3,827 per pupil funding). Whereas, the Deborah Brown charter school received a total revenue less federal funds in the amount of $457,738. The revenue per Capita by weighted ADM 4 Id. at pp. 3-6. 5 Id. at pp. 7-8. 6 See 2013-14 Annual Report, p. 70, attached as Exhibit The federal funds are deducted as they are not state or local revenueusing the weighted ADM, the comparison accounts for the various student weights. 4 was $3,126 per pupil funding). The charter school received approximately $701 less per student.8 13. Charter schools are funded less on a per pupil basis than traditional public schools in Oklahoma. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (DECLARATORY RELIEF) 14. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, Paragraphs 1 through 13 of the Petition. 15. Due to the sequence of events as set forth herein, an actual controversy has arisen concerning the rights and obligations of the Parties under the terms of the Code and Act regarding the equitable funding of public schools, including charter schools. 16. This Court has the authority to declare the rights and obligations of the Parties pursuant to 12 0.8. ?1651. 17. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of rights and obligations of the Parties pursuant to the Code and Act as to the equitable funding of public schools, including charter schools. 18. Article 1, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides that, ?Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state. . . Article 13, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides, ?The Legislature shall establish and maintain a system of free public schools wherein all the children of the State may be educated.? 19. Article 13, Section la of the Oklahoma Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that the Legislature shall, by appropriate legislation, raise and appropriate funds for the annual support of public schools of the State of Oklahoma. Further, the monies raised are to be Id. at. pp. 87, 94. The federal funds are deducted as they are not state or local revenue. 5 distributed to the various school districts in the manner and by a distributing agency designated by the Legislature. 20. The Legislature enacted the Code to establish and maintain a system of free public schools. The Code encompasses the provisions set forth in the Act. 21. The Legislature enacted 70 0.8. which provides that Defendant shall govern the public-school system in the State of Oklahoma. 22. The Legislature set forth the powers and duties of Defendant in 70 0.8. 3-104. These powers and duties include; (1) adopting policies and making rules for the operation of the public school system of the state; (2) submit budget for appropriations for State Aid to schools; (3) prescribe all forms for school district and county of?cers to report to Defendant as well as prescribe a list of appropriation accounts by which the funds of school districts shall be budgeted: accounted for and expended; and (4) Defendant has the authority to perform all duties necessary to the administration of the public school system in Oklahoma as speci?ed in the Code as well as those duties not speci?cally mentioned if not delegated by law to any other agency or of?cial. 23. The Legislature has plainly expressed its intent regarding the funding of public schools in Oklahoma. This legislative intent should be the determinative factor in the decision making of Defendant regarding the funding of public schools. In 70 0.8. 18-101 (emphasis added), the Code provides: The Legislature hereby declares that this act is passed for the general improvement of the public schools in the State of Oklahoma; to provide the best possible educational opportunities for every child in Oklahoma; and to have a more beneficial use of public funds expended for education; and this act shall be liberally construed to attain these qoals within the purview of the following principles and policies: 1. The education of our children is more than the performance of a duty or act of love. It is these things and also the highest expression of enlightened self?interest by the people of Oklahoma. Education is our finest investment. 6 2. The system of public schools should be designed to strengthen and encourage local responsibility for control of public education. Local school districts should be so organized, financed and directed that they can provide full educational opportunities for all children. The maximum public autonomy and responsibility for public education should remain with the local school districts and the patrons of such districts. 3. It is the responsibility of the state on behalf of the people of Oklahoma to establish, maintain, and continually improve the public schools of Oklahoma. in furtherance of this responsibility, the people of Oklahoma through the state have the responsibility to support financially the public schools. 4. Effective local control requires that local school districts contribute to the support of school budgets in proportion to their respective abilities. 5. The system of public school support should assure that state and local funds are adequate for the support of a realistic foundation program. It is unrealistic and unfair to the children of the less wealthy districts to provide less state support than is necessary for full educational opportunities. 6. The system of public school support should encourage local school districts to provide and support improved educational programs. 7. The system of public school support should make provisions for the apportionment of state funds to local school districts on a strictly objective basis that can be computed as well by the local districts as by the state. 8. The system of public school support should effect a partnership between the state and each local district, with each participating in accordance with its relative ability. The respective abilities should be combined to provide a financial plan between the state and the local school district that will assure full educational opportunities for every child in Oklahoma. 9. State support should be extended to all local districts regardless of wealth, for this not only develops a sense of broader responsibility, but also creates flexibility taxwise permitting the exercise of local initiative. State support should, to assure equal educational opportunity, provide for as large a measure of egualization as possible among districts. The taxing power of the state should be utiliz_ed_ to raise the level of educational opportunity in the financially weakest districts of the state. 10. The system of public school support should provide for an equitable system of state and local sharing in the foundation program. The degree of local sharing should be based. as nearly as possible, on the true ability of the local district. so that each may contribute uniformly to the foundation program. 24. In 70 0.8. ?18-109.1, the Legislature speci?cally declared, for the purposes of ?nancial support to school districts through the State Aid Formula, that greater equalization of State Aid to school districts will be attained by following certain procedures. 25. In the Act, the Legislature de?ned a charter school in 70 OS. as a public school established by contract. In fact, 70 0.8. 1-106 provides that the public schools of Oklahoma shall consist of all free schools supported by public taxation. 26. The Act provides that charter school shall receive from the sponsoring school district, the State Aid allocation and any other state-appropriated revenue generated by its students. . . Further, the Act provides that charter school shall be eligible to receive any other aid, grants or revenues allowed to other schools.? Additionally, the Act provides that charter school, in addition to the money received from the state, may receive money from any other source.? 27. Defendant has refused to act to address the inequities in funding between traditional public schools and charter public schools. 28. Plainly, the Legislature intended for equalization of funding between public schools to assure equal educational opportunities. The Act clearly provides that charter schools are public schools. The Act also expressly states that charter schools are eligible to receive any other aid or revenues allowed to other schools. 29. Because of Defendant?s inaction, Plaintiff?s member schools continue to be funded in an inequitable manner in comparison to traditional public schools. 30. A declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under the terms of the Code and Act is necessary so that public charter schools are lawfully and equitably funded for those Oklahoma students that are educated in a public charter school. 31. Pursuant to its powers under 12 08. ?1651, et al., this Court should declare the rights of the parties, including, but not necessarily limited to, that it is the intent of the Oklahoma Legislature that funding between all public schools be equalized to assure equal educational opportunities; that Defendant comply with the requirements in the Code to equalize, to the extent reasonably possible, the Local Revenue and State Revenue funding between traditional and charter public schools within the same tax base to assure equal educational opportunities for all Oklahoma students regardless of the type of public school they attend; and that the Oklahoma public charter schools represented by Plaintiff be provided their proportional share of Local Revenue and State Revenue funding sources, as necessary, to assure equal educational opportunities for all Oklahoma students attending a public school so that there is a reasonable equalization of funding between traditional public schools and public charter schools. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays this Court declare the Parties? rights and obligations under the law as set forth herein, and award Plaintiff its costs of this action, accrued. and accruing, together with a reasonable attorney?s fee, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and equitable. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (DECLARATORY RELIEF) 32. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and adopt the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 31 of the Petition. 33. Due to the sequence of events as set forth herein, an actual controversy has arisen concerning the rights and obligations of the Parties under the terms of the Act. 34. This Court has the authority to declare the rights and obligations of the parties based on the Code, pursuant to 12 0.8. ?l651. 35. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of the rights and obligations of the Parties under the terms of the Code and Act. Speci?cally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant should consider a public charter school as a school district for purposes of funding. As a school district, a public charter school would be eligible to receive its proportionate share of Local Revenue and State Revenue that it is not currently receiving. 36. The Act as adopted in 1999 provided in Section 3?142 ?for purposes of funding, a charter school shall be considered a sli within the local school district in which the charter school is located and the student membership of the charter school shall be included in the average daily membership of the local school district.? 70 0.8. 37. Whereas, Section of the Act, as amended to address charter schools Sponsored by higher education institutions, provides that charter school sponsored higher education institution shall be considered a local education agency for purposes of funding.?9 As such, certain charter school members are undoubtedly their own ?school district? for the purpose of funding. 38. Defendant?s interpretation of the law is based on the original 1999 version of the Act, which only authorized charter schools to be sponsored by local school districts. 39. As stated above, the Oklahoma Legislature amended the Act and authorized institutions of higher education as well as other entities to sponsor charter schools and for such charter schools to be considered a ?local education agency? for purposes of funding, which is synonymous with a charter school being a school district for funding purposes. 40. Further, the Act was recently amended to allow for the creation of a ?conversion school.? 70 0.8. provides that a conversion school is afforded all the flexibilities of a charter school. Like a charter school sponsored by a local school district, a conversion school is also considered a site within the school district. Further, a school?s funding is not affected by the conversion of the school. The term ?local education agency? is synonymous with the term ?school district.? 10 41. The plain language of the Act provides that charter schools not sponsored by a local school district are a local education agency a school district). And, the plain language of the Act provides that a conversion school, which is essentially a charter school, will continue to receive the same funding before it was converted, which includes the Local Revenue and State Revenue that Plaintiff seeks in this lawsuit. 42. To ensure equitable funding between charter schools as well as conversion schools, the Court should interpret the Code in its totality and determine that for funding purposes, a public charter school should be considered a school district. 43. 70 0.8. ?l?l 17 provides, ?The general fund of any school district is hereby de?ned as a current expense fund and shall consist of all revenue or monies that can legally be expended within a certain speci?ed ?scal year . . . A charter school, like a traditional public school, has a general fund. The Code continues by providing, ?All monies derived from state- dedicated revenue, state?appropriated revenue unless otherwise provided by law, and county sources shall be placed in the general fund provided for by this section.? 44. The Legislature established a process for ?other state-appropriated revenues generated by its students? to be distributed to schools. 70 0.8. 4?104 provides that the county clerk shall obtain from the Oklahoma Department of Education and furnish to the county assessor, a current description of the boundary of each school district or part of a district in the county and notify the Oklahoma Tax Commission, the county assessor and country treasurer of the county of all changes in the boundaries. 45. A charter school would receive its proportionate share of State Revenue that it is currently not receiving if Defendant would ensure that charter schools were included on the list of school districts along with their respective boundaries, that were sent to the county assessor ll offices in Oklahoma and provide notice to the Oklahoma Tax Commission, the county assessor and the county treasurer of any changes in the boundaries. 46. Pursuant to the oversight of Defendant, the Oklahoma State Department of Education provides a list of school districts for each county setting forth the average daily attendance, which. is used in the apportionment and distribution of county 4?rnill, school land, gross production, and motor vehicle revenues.10 Defendant should include charter schools on this list so that they may receive their apportionment of said revenue sources. 47. The Court should interpret the Code and Act to ensure a consistent treatment for funding purposes between charter schools and traditional public schools within the same tax base and charter schools and conversion schools. 48. Defendant is interpreting the Act to prohibit charter schools from receiving any other source of funds except for State Aid, regardless of the sponsoring entity. 49. Defendant?s interpretation of the Code and Act are contrary to the intent of the Oklahoma Constitution and the law concerning equitable funding between Oklahoma public schools. 50. Under Defendant?s interpretation of the law, Defendant is treating public schools differently from a funding perspective. As a result, Defendant?s interpretation of the law requires Plaintiff to provide equitable educational opportunities to its students with less ?nancial resources than traditional public schools. 51. A declaration of the rights and obligations of the Parties under the terms of the Act is necessary so that Plaintiffs charter school members may receive equitable funding as a public-school district in Oklahoma. ?0 See Oklahoma Department of Education Certi?ed Daily Attendance for apportionment of proceeds, pp. 10, 14, attached as Exhibit 12 52. In consideration of the above and foregoing, the Court should declare that public charter schools be treated like school districts within the same tax base for funding purposes to assure the equitable funding of public schools. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays this Court declares the Parties? rights and obligations under the Act, and award Plaintiff the costs of this action, accrued and accruing, together with a reasonable attorney?s fee, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and equitable. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (WRIT OF MANDAMUS) 53. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and adopts the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 52 of the Petition. 54. As set forth herein, Defendant has refused to perform certain acts required by law. 55. Pursuant to 12 0.8. ?l451, this Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus, compelling Defendant?s performance of certain acts which the law requires. 56. Under the express language of the Act, Defendant is to assure equal educational opportunity by providing for as large a measure of equalization as possible among public schools for funding purposes. 57. Defendant is reguired to act to address inequities in funding between traditional public schools and charter public schools. 58. Defendant?s statutory duty is founded upon the Legislature?s constitutional obligation to the citizens of Oklahoma to create a system of public education and to provide for the equitable funding of these schools. 13 59. Having complied with all the requirements to be a charter school, Plaintiff?s members should receive funding equitable to traditional public schools from Local Revenue and State Revenue sources. 60. Defendant should have taken the ministerial acts to assure equal educational opportunities for all of Oklahoma?s children based on an equitable allocation of. funds. 61. Defendant has refused to address inequities in funding between public schools. 62. With its refusal, Defendant has thereby failed to assure equal educational opportunities for students attending public charter schools in comparison to traditional public schools. Because of Defendant?s inactions, Plaintiff?s school members have been prohibited from receiving the public funds that they are entitled to pursuant to the Oklahoma Constitution and the Code, which thereby deprives the parents and students that have chosen a public charter school from equal educational opportunities derived from an equitable allocation of public funds. 63. The Code requires Defendant to allocate and remit funds to public schools commencing in August such that an Emergency Writ of Mandamus is the only appropriate legal remedy to cure the severe ?nancial situation facing Oklahoma?s charter schools. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court issue a writ mandating that Defendant ensure that Local Revenue and State Revenue is allocated to public charter schools in a manner that it is equitable on a per student basis within the same tax base; that Defendant take the reasonable administrative actions, to include, but not necessarily limited to, interpreting the Code to assure equitable funding, providing notice to county assessors, the Oklahoma Tax Commission and any other entity as necessary to ensure that charter schools receive equitable funding within the same tax base, af?rming that charter schools are school districts for funding purposes, and award Plaintiff costs, reasonable attorney?s fee, and other relief as Court deems just and equitable. l4 15 Respectfully Submitted, - i/ William H. Hickman, OBA 18395 HICKMAN LAW GROUP 330 W. Gray Street, Suite 170 Norman, Oklahoma 73069 Phone: 405.605.2375 Fax: 405.605.2374 hickmm?lhiC-kmanlaxigrouncom Attorney for Plaintiff EXHIBIT OKLAHOMA SCHOOL FINANCE Technical Assistance Document STh'ai'E assume-m SOURCES OF REVENUE STATE AID FORMULA FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION Revised February 2016 PREFACE Pursuant to the Oklahoma statutes and State Board of Education regulations, certain individuals are appointed or designated by the local board of education to be responsible for proper receipting and disbursement of public funds within the public school districts in Oklahoma. Periodically, statutory provisions or board regulations are amended to meet current ?nancial or administrative situations. This Technical Assistance Document for School ?nance should be utilized to complement the statutes and regulations. It is presented in an easy-to?use format using a combination of actual statutory/regulatory provisions and an easy-to?understand narrative. The document provides an overview of revenues for local school districts and provides an explanation of the various sources. Typically, the State Aid Formula is the prominent source of funding for the aVerage school district. The formula with its weighted components is explained in detail. Various penalties/adjustments that affect school district funding are outlined and de?ned to allow school district personnel to monitor the local district's compliance with statutory provisions or board regulations. Policies/procedures governing school ?nance are also presented in an understandable manner. Members of the local board of education, superintendents, business of?ce personnel, budget makers, independent auditors, and others who have the responsibility for school district funds, preparation of school district budgets, and the administration of local school districts should become familiar with this Technical Assistance Document for School Finance February 2016. SECTION I SOURCES OF REVENUE for OKLAHOMA SCHOOL DISTRICTS CHART N0. 1 Revenues?State Totals This chait re?ects state totals for collections from the various sources for General Fund revenue and the amount collected by source among the common schools of Oklahoma for the 2014-15 ?scal year as reported by the Oklahoma Cost Accounting System. State totals for Building Fund and Sinking Fund collections are also included. LOCAL AND COUNTY SOURCES AMOUNT PERCENT OF TOTAL 35-min Ad Valorem Tax 1,079,562,315 County4-rmll 122,282,653 County Apportionment 35 22,5 59,470 ResalePropertyFund 2,600,065 87,250,141 Total Local andCounty 1,314,254,644 28.37% STATE SOURCES (Dedicated and Appropriated) Gross Production Tax 83,877,100 Motor Vehicle Collections 261,393,321 Rural Electri?cation Association Cooperative 42,070,495 State SchoolLand Earnings 97,758,951 StateAid Allocations 1,870,696,309 DnverEducatlon 900,000 Vehicle Tax Stamp 1,167,904 Farm Implement Tax Stamp. 236,879 Other Dedicated 3 8 0,191 Flexible Bene?tAllowancc 375,799,305 Alternative and At? Risk Education .. 10,678,605 Instructional, Cooperative and Tech. quc. C. T. 26,149 Arts-in- Education. .. 0 State 57,610,154 Special Programs 3 1,047,827 Other State Sources 16,770,299 Child Nutrition Programs 8 823,48 7 Career-Technology Programs 19,559,047 Total State 2,840,796,023 61.33 FEDERAL SOURCES Capital Outlay 67,886,991 Disadvantaged Students 187,511,478 Individuals with Disabilities 132,230,522 13,683,276 Operations . . 7,834,540 OtherFederal Sources 20,484,555 Child Nutrition Programs.? 41,121,960 5,939,104 Total Federal 476,692,426 10.29% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 4,631,743,093 100.00% Building Fund Total. 195,090,349 Sinking Fund Total 589,864,299 GRAND TOTAL 5,243,100,688 LOCAL SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS The principal sources of local revenue are as follows: General Fund Levies Building Fund Levy County 4-mill Levy Sinking Fund Levy County Apportionment Other Local Miscellaneous Revenues The Ad Valorem Tax Levy The preperty tax (ad valorcm tax) is the traditional source of local revenue for schools throughout the United States. In Oklahoma, this tax is levied in mills (1 mill is 1/ 1000 of a dollar or .001) against real, personal and public service property. Ten mills equal one penny. Stated another way, a mill is a tax of one dollar per thousand dollars of property valuation subject to taxation. Real property is the land itself and all rights and privileges that add value to the property, such as irrigation, mines, minerals, quarries, and trees on or under the same, and all building, structures, and improvements of any kind. Excluded are machinery and ?xtures, which are de?ned as personal property. Preperty owners receive a tax exemption of $1,000 if the property is claimed as a homestead. Personal property includes all goods, chattels and effects; all improvements made by others upon lands; all stock of nurserymen; all horses, cattle, mules, sheep, swine, goats, and other livestock; all household furniture, and personal libraries; wagons, vehicles, or carriages; machinery and materials used by manufacturers and all manufactured articles; all goods and capital used in merchandising; all abstractors? books and records; all agriculture implements and machinery; all tanks and containers used to hold or store oil or any of its by-products; all gas, oil, water or other pipelines; telephone or telegraph lines, railroad tracks, oil and petroleum products; and all other property having an actual, constructive or taxable situs in this state and not included within the de?nition of real property. Public service property is that property used to provide services, usually utility services, for the public in general. This includes oil and gas pipelines, generating plants for electricity, railroads and other such utilities. Taxes are not levied on the full value of properties. The Constitution limits taxation to 35 percent of the fair cash value of the property. Fair cash value is the value and price at which a willing buyer would purchase property and a willing seller would sell property, if both parties are knowledgeable about the property and its uses, and if neither party is under any undue pressure to buy or sell. Some percentage of full value is established which is called an assessment ration. This percentage, when applied to the fair cash value, determines the assessed value at which property will be taxed. Real and personal preperty are assessed by a county of?cial, the county assessor. Public service property is assessed by the state. The State Board of Equalization, with recommendations from the Oklahoma Tax Commission, Ad Valorcm Division, orders equalization of locally assessed property when counties are not in compliance and ultimately approves all property value assessment, including public service property. The ration used for public service property is 22-85 percent which is higher than the ratio that is used at the local level. Chart No. 2 (page 5) summarizes the various property classi?cations and school tax levies. Separate Tax Levies There are seven different ad valorem tax levies that are used in Oklahoma for the support of the public schools at the local level. The state Constitution provides for each levy, which in one way or another is constrained by the constitutional provisions. Three of the seven require direct authorization by a majority of electors in the school district at the annual school election. Chart N0. 3 (page 6) illustrates the constitutional levies for taxing jurisdictions in Oklahoma. Each levy is listed below with an explanation of the speci?c provisions of each: General Fund Levies ll FLEVV AT Certi?cation of Need Resolution by Board of Education 15 mills Each board of education in Oklahoma is authorized to levy up to 15 mills (plus increased millage because of personal property tax adjustment) on the property in the district based on certi?cation of need for the ?nancial support of the schools. School districts should be aware that when this millage is increased, the higher millage rate will be used when calculating the amount of adjusted valuation that will be used as a chargeable in the Foundation Aid portion of the State Aid formula (70 0.8. 18400.1). The board is required to ?le a ?Preliminary Estimate of Needs? that is published in a local newspaper no later than December 31 specifying a proposed budget for the coming year that demonstrates the need for the levy. The election for such levies and board member elections oecru? in school districts annually. County Levy County Excise Board 5 mills (minimum) There is a lS-mill county levy over which the county excise board has jurisdiction. The law requires that at least 5 mills of that 15 must be allocated to the schools. For all practical purposes, the other 10 mills are allotted to the support of county government, but technically, the law would allow the excise board to allocate a portion of the 10 mills to municipalities and/or school districts. Emergency Levy Majority of voters in mills (maximum) annual school election This levy was an amendment to the Constitution. Originally, criteria constituting an emergency had to be met in order for a school district to ask for approval. Those emergency criteria were abandoned many years ago, and it is now a routine supporting levy for every school district in the state. Local Support Levy Majority of voters in 10 mills (maximum) annual schoolelection This levy was another amendment to the Constitution of the state. As in the case of the emergency levy, it has become a routine tax issue that every district in the state levies every year. These four levies add up to a total of 35 mills (plus increased millage because of personal property tax adjustment) for the General Fund. The system has evolved to the point that these millage levies are not really Optional. They are also interrelated with state aid to the point that no district, even one with considerable property wealth, can afford not to levy the maximum. In effect, there is no constitutionally permissible way for districts, even by approval of voters, to raise additional ad valorem levies to support the general operation of the schools. Building Fund Levv Building Fund Levy Majority of voters in 5 mills (maximum) annual school election The Constitution provides that each school district may levy up to 5 mills for the purpose of erecting, remodeling, and repairing school buildings, or for purchasing ?Jrniture. In the early history of the state, it was envisioned that the 5 mills might be suf?cient to provide the money necessary for building facilities for the many school districts. However, it became unrealistic for most districts a long time ago. Through various legal interpretations, the use of money in the Building Fund levy has been liberalized so that it can be used not only for maintenance, but also for the purchase of equipment. In some cases, it is used even for operational expenses. The Attorney General has ruled that payment of property and casualty insurance can be made from this fund. Coung 4-mill Levy 4-mill Countywide Levy Constitutional During the days of the so?called ?separate? schools in Oklahoma, this levy was provided as a means of raising money to support those schools. When desegregation was implemented in Oklahoma in the mid-titties, this 4-rni11 levy became a countywide source to be divided among the school districts within the county. This is the only school support levy that is countywide and is divided among the school districts in each county on the basis of each district?s average daily attendance. In some counties, this contributes to a much more equal distribution of at least these 4 mills of the money derived froma single piece of valuable industrial or public service property. Sinkin Fund Let Sinking Fund Levy Through bondissue election with 60 percent majority vote and judgments against the district Each school district in Oklahoma is authorized to borrow money up to an amount that does not exceed 10 percent of its total assessed valuation. Money is borrowed through the issuance of bonds a?er the bond issue has been approved by the voters. The issue does not carry unless 60 percent of those voting in the election vote ?yes-5, A Sinking Fund levy is determined following the approval of the bond issue to yield enough money to pay the principal and the interest on the bond issue. In other words, the number of mills levied will vary from district to district in temis of the size of the bond issue, the term of the bonds (how long until they are paid off), and the interest rate. Many districts have no Sinking Fund levy, and others have levies exceeding 30 mills. Additionally, Sinking Fund levies may be ordered by the court to ?tnd debts of the school district when the district has unlawfully expended beyond its appropriation. County Apportionment and Other Local Miscellaneous Revenues There is a county apportionment that comes from revenue from a mortgage tax in each county. It is distributed among the school districts on an average daily attendance basis. Other miscellaneous revenues, such as interest income, gifts, student fees, the sale of property, transfer fees, tuition, rental, and refunds are collected locally. CHART NO. 2 Summary of Ad ValoremProperty Classi?cations and Tax Levies for School Districts Ad ValoremProperty includes these classi?cations: I. RealProperty A. Residential B. Conunercial/Industrial C. Agricultural 11. Personal Preperty** Public ServiceProperty AdValorem Tax Levies for School Purposes General Fund: 1 5?mill Levy 15 mills** Certi?cation ofNeed County 4-mill Levy 4 mills Constitutional County 1 5-mi11 Levy 5 mills Constitutional EmergencyLevy 5 mills MajorityVote Local SupportLevy 10 mills MajorityVote General Fund 39 mills Building Fund: 5 mills Maj orityVote Sinking Fund: As voted for Bond Issues and levied for Judgments Counties who have done away with their individual personal property tax have been allowed to raise their lS-mill Levy based on a formula in Article X, Section 8A, Paragraph of the Constitution. Constitutional Authority Art. Sec. 9(a) Art. Sec. 9 Art. Sec. 9(c) Art. Sec. 9 Art. Sec. 9(d-l) Art. Sec. 10 Art. Sec. 26, 28 Art. Sec. 9(a) Art. Sec- 9A Art. Sec. 10 Art. Sec. 35 Art. Sec. 26, 28 Art. Sec- 10 Art. Sec- 35 Art. Sec. 26, 27, 28 Art. Sec. 9B (A) Art. Sec. 9B (13) Art. Sec. 10 Art. Sec. 9B (C) Art. Sec. 10A Art. Sec. 9C (A) Art. Sec. 9C (D) Art. Sec. 9D (A) Art. Sec. 9D (G) Art. Sec. 71 Art. Sec. 7, 26 Art. 2: Sec. 72 Art. Sec. 7, 26 Art. Sec. 7" Art. Sec. 7 CHART NO. 3 Ad Valo rem Levies by Jurisdiction Levy by Jurisdictional Catego ry SchoolDistricts lS-mill County County 4- mill School District Levy (Board Cert1f1ed) Emergency Lev..-.y Local Support Levy Building Fund Levy Sinking Fund Levy County Government 15-min County Levy Health Department Building Fund Industry Development Incentive Boiid Levy: Sinking Fund Levy Municipal Government Current Mill Levy Limitation ..-5 .10 5 10% 10 10% Building Fund Levy 5 Industry Development Incentive Bond Levy 5 inking Fimd Levy 10% SpecialDistricts Career Tech/Community College School Levy 5 Career Tech Local Incentive Levy5 Career Tech Building Fund Levy-.. . ..5 County and City- County Library Fund Levy 1-4 Emergency Medical Service District 3 Emergency Medical Service District Sinking Fund Levy 3 Solid Waste Management Disnict 3 Solid Waste Management District Sinking Fund Levy 3 Fire Protection District 7 Fire Protection District Sinking Fund Levy Sewer Improvement District Levy.-. 10 Sewer Improvement District Sinking Fund Levym (Onrealproperty only)3.. Rural Road Improvement District Levy 3 Rural Road Improvement Disnict Sinking Fund Levy 5 1 See also 19 0.8., Sec. 901.] et seq. 2 See also 19 0.8., See. 871 et seq. 3 Tax base limitation also applies to jurisdictional general fund. 4 See also 19 0.5., Sec. 902.1 et seq. NAV: Net assessed valuation STATE SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS Most school districts in Oklahoma receive more money from the state for the support of their schools than from any other source. However, the money comes in a number of different ways. The two major categories of state money are the monies that come from dedicated revenues and those that come from appropriations by the Legislature. In the case of the former, from time to time during the years since the state came into existence, certain portions of certain taxes or other revenue sources have been earmarked for use by the schools. These provisions have been incorporated in the statutes, and there is usually little or no discussion about them each year as the Legislature meets. However, use of these earmarked taxes occurs when the state aid formula is calculated for state appropriation purposes. The second category, the money that is received by the schools from appropriations by the Legislature, is the largest single revenue source for almost all public schools in Oklahoma. ApprOpriated revenue is debated each time the Legislature meets. The debate centers not only on how much money will be provided, but on how the money will be distributed among school districts. The common school appropriation is by far the largest single apprOpriation that the Legislature makes each year. Since it affects every school district in the state, the concerns about how many dollars are spent and where the dollars go are universal and intense. Either directly or indirectly, almost every person in Oklahoma is affected by the decisions the Legislature makes about how much money is to be appropriated for the schools and how that money is to be distributed. STATE-DEDICATED REVENUES The principal sources of state-dedicated revenues are established in law and are very rarely changed by the legislature. These revenue sources are: Gross Production Tax MotorVehicle Collections RuralElectri?cationAssociation State School LandEarnings Gross Production Tax Since Oklahoma is an energy state, a major source of tax revenue has been the tax on oil, gas and other minerals as they are produced. This tax is called gross production tax. A portion of the tax generated from production in each county is allocated back to the county for distribution on an average daily attendance basis among the county?s independent school districts (68 0.8. 1004). Since some counties have large amounts of production and others very little, there is substantial variation in the revenues received by school districts from the portion of the gross production tax that is dedicated to the public schools. Motor Vehicle Collections Revenues generated by all motor vehicle taxes and fees now go into one fund at the state level and are apportioned to the recipients, including schools, from that fund. The money for schools is remitted to the respective county and independent treasurers, but the amount of money received depends on the allocations from the state to the respective school districts-mot on the sales of tags in the respective counties- Effective October 1, 2000, and approved by a popular vote of the people, registration fees for car tags were signi?cantly reduced and a new fee schedule went into effect. The most expensive car tag for Oklahoma residents is $91, excluding related fees; however, those purchasing used vehicles now pay a higher excise tax fee than under the former schedule. Under the updated fee schedule, funds collected for schools should remain constant with no adverse effect to school funding. The percentage that comes to the schools is 36-2 percent of this total state fund (47 0.8. 1104 There is also a provision in the law, which states that all school districts receive the same amount of money per month as they did in the same month of the previous year. In effect, it is a guarantee provision of these collections. Money collected above what is necessary to meet the guarantee provision will be distributed statewide on the basis of average daily attendance. 1f the monies fall below the guarantee, all school districts are reduced proportionately. A separate allocation of money to schools for boat and motor fees and for manufactured (mobile) homes no longer exists. They are combined with the other vehicle fees and registrations, which also include those for recreational vehicles, ambulances, and travel trailers. A separate statute for manufactured homes requires that such homes be initially registered for one year with subsequent placement on the ad valorem tax rolls as either real or personal property. Rural Electrification Association Cooperative Tax 13.E.A. Tax) A tax is levied on rural electric cooperatives in accordance to property valuation and distributed in proportion to the number of miles of transmission lines within each district served. Such money is considered in lieu of property tax and goes to the schools in the respective counties. School Land Earnings When Oklahoma came into the union, a substantial amount of federal lands were granted to Oklahoma from the federal government. The federal requirement was that the revenue from those lands must be used for the bene?t of the public schools. The land is administered by the Commissioners of the Land Of?ce and the revenue derived from it, whether it be interest or rent, for example, is distributed to school districts across the state on the basis of average daily attendance- The money derived from the selling of this property must go into what is called the ?Permanent School Fun Only interest from the investment of that money can be distributed to the schools. The principal must be permanently maintained. 2015-2016 IN THE BANK (Foundation, Salary Incentive and Transportation Aid) Electronic Funds Transfer Dates scheduled State Aid payments in July 12 Tentative Payment Schedule Foundation and Salary Incentive Aid (State Aid) Accumulated Accumulated Month Percentage Percentage Month Percentage Percentage July 0% 0% January 9% 54% August 8% 8% February 9% 63% September 10% 1 8% March 9% 72% October 9% 2 7% April 9% 8 1% November 9 3 6% May 1 0% 91% December 9% 45% June 9% 100% To calculate the state aid payment each month, multiply the accumulated percentage (see chart above) by the most recent allocation, then subtract the amount paid to date. The result is the amount of payment for any given month. Example: The accumulated percentage for September?s state aid is 18 percent (August 8% September Multiply your district?s most recent allocation 18%, subtract the amount already paid to date, and the result will be the payment amount for September. 13 EXHIBIT 2013-2014: ANNUAL REPORT STATISTICAL REPORT on. SCHOOLS and the STATE of EDUCATION OKLAHONIA STATE DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION Report Date: 3/30/2015 12:39:56 PM Page 70 COUNTY: 55 OKLAHOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NET VALUATIONS USED IN 2014-2015 ESTIMATE OF NEEDS AS CERTIFIED TO STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION VALUE OF VALUE OF vm-E OF VAL. LEVIES GENERAL FUND GEN. FUND DIST DISTRICT NAME REAL PERSONAL PUBLIC TOTAL OF PER CAP GEN. BLDG SINK EXPENDITURE BALANCE NO PROPERTY PROPERTY SERVICES VALUATION RAW FUND FUND FUND JUNE 30, 2014 JULY 1. 2014 ADA C029 OAKDALE 73,692,782 7,526,035 1,420,824 82,639,641 134,849 36.67 5.24 20.87 3,820,477 429,271 0074 CRUTCHO 5,490,519 7,395,864 2,901,553 15,787,936 46,285 35.54 5.08 18.40 2,533,201 287,750 I001 PUTNAM CITY 774,183,402 137,499,145 23,740,782 935,423,329 51,357 36.46 5.21 20.45 123,749,976 14,569,373 1003 LUTHER 30,978,625 3,512,758 48,008,829 82,500,212 92,921 36.54 5.22 14.72 5,618,134 639,586 1004 PARK 178,624,601 4,909,046 7,606,052 191,139,699 38,782 38.91 5.27 34.00 44,081,038 2,082,199 1006 DEER CREEK 286,469,845 13,792,935 11,150,016 311,412,796 64,065 36.89 5.27 35.15 24,981,229 2,992,666 1007 HARRAH 48,570,384 4,301,377 21,894,336 74,766,097 37,585 35.89 5.13 21.74 12,854,011 1,365,273 1009 JONES 29,912,865 2,658,624 2,382,892 34,954,381 32,398 36.63 5.23 30.70 6,979,005 377,937 1012 EDMOND 1,482,507,436 126,481,372 29,692,035 1,638,680,843 74,955 36.98 5.28 24.04 136,146,740 11,549,089 1037 MILLWOOD 25,264,452 14,250,680 1,429,174 40,944,306 41,909 35.84 5.12 13.74 6,712,606 109,137 1041 WESTERN HEIGHTS 143,093,158 167,121,470 16,416,806 326,631,434 93,817 35.27 5.04 23.25 27,368,152 1,439,729 1052 MIDWEST CITY-DEL CITY 383,249,909 84,016,778 21,191,513 488,458,200 35,812 36.14 5.16 29.02 86,705,681 7,658,896 1053 CROOKED OAK 21,271,472 27,262,616 8,042,072 56,576,160 53,466 35.07 5.01 35.79 9,010,592 1,848,824 1088 BETHANY 12,183,819 773,632 662,283 13,619,734 8,374 36.05 5.15 37.48 11,422,340 2,363,675 1089 OKLAHOMA CITY 1,486,387,764 319,139,225 133,421,652 1,938,948,641 51,234 35.96 5.14 18.26 313,801,257 16,752,665 TOTAL 4,981,881,033 920,641,557 329,960,819 6,232,483,409 54,829 - 815,784,440 64,466,071 In addition to the levies shown, all schools receive another4 mIlls. [County 4 mill levy-article x-section 9-constitution of Oklahoma) Includes all functions from OCAS expenditure data. COUNTY: 55 OKLAHOMA STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION TOTAL REVENUE RECEIVED BY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2013-2014 STATE REVENUES TOTAL NEW REVENUE DIST DISTRICT NAME RAW RAW WGHT LOCAL STATE STATE FEDERAL REVENUE PER CAP N0 03313?, DEDICATED APPROPRIATED RECEIVED WGHT ADM 0029 OAKDALE 612.83 637.87 881.19 3,088,765 87,874 398,711 227,733 3,803,083 4,316 0074 CRUTCHO 341.10 361.18 633.02 646,763 47,042 1,486,366 512,347 2,692,517 4,253 1001 PUTNAM CITY 18,213.98 19,192.88 31,177.74 39,602,488 12,127,362 60,629,789 9,614,667 121,974,306 3,912 1003 LUTHER 887.85 940.27 1,387.23 2,925,946 678,225 1,472,112 487,902 5,564,185 4,011 1004 PARK 5,196.58 5,507.25 8,217-39 8,943,044 3,656,698 17,690,196 2,196,561 32,486,500 3,953 1006 DEER CREEK 4,860.89 5,040.18 6,935.84 11,915,991 1,442,652 11,504,661 649,462 25,512,766 3,678 1007 HARRAH 1,989.25 2,118.71 3,252.20 3,268,738 1,447,938 7,074,236 1,163,840 12,954,752 3,983 1009 JONES 1,078.91 1,135.28 1,712.18 1,551,275 723,365 3,817,356 368,348 6,460,344 3,773 1012 EDMOND 21,862.31 22,979.98 33,535.97 63,646,951 10,357,301 46,620,365 6,451,062 127,075,679 3,789 1037 MILLWOOD 976.99 1,013.90 1,624.11 1,734,980 736,557 3,185,832 561,862 8,219,231 3,829 1041 WESTERN HEIGHTS 3,481.57 3,757.22 6,229.31 12,789,800 2,246,646 8,371,018 3,118,927 26,526,391 4,258 1052 MIDWEST CITY 13,639.40 14,428.93 22,452.84 21,814,753 10,344,353 47,016,513 7,862,044 87,037,664 3,875 1053 CROOKED OAK 1,058.18 1,127.10 2,049.27 2,402,099 596,423 4,334,417 1,111,892 8,444,831 4,121 J088 BETHANY 1,626.45 1,683.73 2,942.83 1,047,314 731,056 8,449,132 944,500 11,172,001 3,796, 1089 OKLAHOMA CITY 37,845.23 40,383.41 67,588.91 82,466,481 26,619,906 133,416,540 41,267,329 283,770,257 4,1981% TOTAL 113,671.52 120,307.89 190,620.03 257,845,387 71,843,398 355,467,245 76,538,475 761,694,505 3,996 State appropriated revenue for sponsoring district includes charter school ?ow through funds. Taken from ?nal audit 2013?2014 Used 2013-2014 State Aid Formula to calculate foundation 8. salary incentive aid Revenue Per Capita is calculated by using the weighted ADM to better reflect the distribution of revenue by district Remainder of information taken from school district Estimate of Needs and ?nancial statement. Includes all Revenue Sources from OCAS. Report Date: 3730/2015 12:40:05 PM Page 87 COUNTY: 72 TULSA SCHOOL DISTRICT NET VALUATIONS USED IN 2014-2015 ESTIMATE OF NEEDS AS CERTIFIED TO STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION VALUE OF VALUE OF VALUE OF VAL. LEVIES GENERAL FUND DIST DISTRICT NAME REAL PERSONAL PUBLIC TOTAL OF PER CAP GEN. BLDG SINK EXPENDITURE BALANCE NO PROPERTY PROPERTY SERVICES VALUATION FUND FUND FUND JUNE 30,2014 JULY 1,2014 CO15 KEYSTONE 11,600,829 905,475 1.370.379 13,876,683 45,104 36.05 5.15 0.00 2,309,853 336,686 l001 TULSA 1,712,885,241 422,031,605 130,046,196 2,264,963,042 61.732 36.05 5.15 27.79 301,233,763 21,330,976 l002 SAND SPRINGS 123,005,835 23,680,913 9.107.732 155,794,480 31,024 36.05 5.15 31.41 33,464,668 5,614,774 l003 BROKENARROW 658,515,724 77,554,379 32,953,314 769,023,417 44,839 36.40 5.20 29.50 106,843,874 14,412,752 l004 BIXBY 306,281,348 39,828,054 10,550,675 356,660,077 65.676 36.05 5.15 26.56 32,347,692 3,352,323 l005 JENKS 634,286,217 34,327,243 35,792,107 704,405,567 66,572 36.40 5.20 34.41 68,836,370 7,142,858 l006 COLLINSVILLE 67,197,360 2,715,542 2,209,256 72,122,158 28,688 36.40 5.20 24.41 15,844,380 371,905 l007 SKIATOOK 71,503,280 5,025,965 2,473,312 79,002,557 32,998 36.40 5.20 31.65 15,346,378 2,012,916 008 SPERRY 22,595,539 1,706,215 3,987,271 28,289,025 25,245 36.05 5.15 22.53 7,357,375 2,470,595 l009 UNION 628,740,000 99,732,783 16,546,904 745,019,687 50,568 36.05 5.15 28.99 100,476,422 14,050,739 l010 BERRYHILL 20,621,494 6,693,865 11,599,241 38,914,600 31,601 36.05 5.15 26.83 7,195,060 791,719 l011 OWASSO 388,686,239 50,164,050 18,088,271 456,938,560 51,199 36.05 5.15 26.50 51,702,248 4,676,585 l013 GLENPOOL 60,124,268 5,569,927 6,102,892 71,797,087 29,797 36.05 5.15 29.69 15,764,347 1,796,246 l014 LIBERTY 12,921,305 849,251 958,821 14,729,377 27,164 37.10 5.30 22.26 4,142,500 313,089 TOTAL 4,718,964,679 770,785,267 281,786,371 5,771.536,317 52,925 - - - 762,863,930 78,674,161 In addition to the levies shown, all schools receive another 4 mills. [County 4 mill levy-article x-section 9-constitution of Oklahoma) Includes all functions from OCAS exgenditure data. COU NTYI 72 TULSA STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL IN FORMATION TOTAL REVENUE RECEIVED BY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2013-2014 STATE REVENUES TOTAL NEW REVENUE DIST DISTRICT NAME RAW RAW WGHT LOCAL STATE STATE FEDERAL REVENUE PER CAP N0 63513? DEDICATED APPROPRIATED RECEIVED WGHT ADM ?015 KEYSTONE 307.66 326.37 560.21 590,966 164,528 1,233,208 312,376 2,301,079 4,108 001 TULSA 36,690.45 39,700.48 67,379.20 107,289,785 26,128,919 124,309,507 37,153,270 294,881,480 4,376 ?1002 SAND SPRINGS 5,021.80 5,339.34 8,254.16 7,654,918 3,444,960 19,015,433 2,265,471 32,380,782 3.923 l003 BROKEN ARROW 17,150.76 18,125.98 26,997.90 32,394,191 9,071,291 54,708,954 6,133,489 102,307,925 3,789 [004 BIXBY 5,430.64 5,637.88 8,117.51 13,817,578 2,274,612 12,861,064 1,657,120 30,610,374 3,771 1005 JENKS 10,581.07 11,146.33 16,881.12 28,971,988 5,340,655 26,745,870 3,701,925 64,760,637 3,836 l006 COLLINSVILLE 2,514.03 2,621.25 3,759.66 3,486,735 1,376,491 8,864,596 1,576,893 15,304,714 4,071 1007 SKIATOOK 2,394.17 2,525.73 3,787.43 3,868,196 1,362,286 8,906,057 1,310,409 15,446,949 4,078 IDDB SPERRY 1,120.60 1,192.81 1,839.55 1,367,184 1,551,041 3,994,775 665,867 7,578,866 4,120 I009 UNION 14,733.06 15,485.87 24,560.60 35,686,480 6,953,695 51,234,117 6,618,469 100,492,762 4,092 l010 BERRYHILL 1,231.43 1,287.36 1,790.94 1,868,983 583,546 4,069,720 573,262 7,095,510 3,962 l011 OWASSO 8,924.73 9,367.84 13,382.89 18,200,843 4,074,260 25,207,184 2,999,418 50,481,705 3,772 I013 GLENPOOL 2,409.58 2,553.60 3,887.91 3,235,159 7 1,225,239 9,552.456 1,141,267 15,154,122 3,898 I014 LIBERTY 542.24 569.50 885.55 738,405 415,588 2,119,016 581,847 3,854,856 4,353 TOTAL 109,052.22 115,880.34 182,084.63 259,171,411 63,967,310 352,821,958 66,691,083 742,651,762 4,079 State appropriated revenue for sponsoring district includes charter school flow through funds. Taken from final audit 2013-2014 Used 2013-2014 State Aid Formula to calculate foundation 8; salary incentive aid Revenue Per Capita is calculated by using the weighted ADM to better re?ect the distribution of revenue by district Remainder of information taken from school district Estimate of Needs and ?nancial statement. Includes all Revenue Sources from OCAS. Remainder of Information taken from school district Estimate of Needs and ?nancial statement. Includes all Revenue Sources from OCAS. Taken from final audit 2013-2014 Used 2013-2014 State Aid Formula to calculate foundation 8 salary incentive aid Revenue Per Capita Is calculated by using the weighted ADM to better re?ect the distribution of revenue by district Report Date: 3730/2015 12:40:07 PM Page 94 OKLAHOMA CHARTER SCHOOLS STATISTICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION TOTAL REVENUE RECEIVED BY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2013-2014 STATE REVENUES TOTAL NEW REVENUE DIST DISTRICT NAME RAW RAW WGHT LOCAL STATE STATE FEDERAL REVENUE PER CAP NO 03313? DEDICATED APPROPRIATED RECEIVED WGHT ADM E001 OKC: INDEPENDENCE MS 294.09 303.16 456.79 189,768 0 1,510,041 194,217 1,894,026 4,146 E002 OKC: SEEWORTH ACADEMY 398.29 457.88 854.72 221,538 0 3,319,357 2,159,407 5,700,301 6,669 ?003 OKC: VILLAGE 314.82 326.86 522.98 278,439 0 1,718,185 397,420 2,394,044 4,573 EOO4 OKC: ASTEC CHARTERS 742.48 770.24 1,319.49 171,100 0 489,995 680,005 1,341,100 1,016 TULSA: SCHL 276.60 296.06 439.91 149,299 0- 1,404,459 99,170 1,652,928 3,757 E005 KIPP TULSA ACADEMY PRE 301.46 316.34 481.98 316,685 0 141,053 423,482 881,220 1,828 E005 EPIC ONE VIRTUAL CHART 2,519.22 2,519.22 4,147.57 575 0 12,590,039 548,058 13,138,673 3.16.8 E005 OKC: DOVE SCIENCE ACAD 469.52 485.59 826.66 20,729 0 2,617,360 411,369 3,049,458 3,689 E006 LIGHTHOUSE ACADEMY 314.54 324.27 528.86 231,095 0 1,734,891 498,281 2,464,266 4,660 E007 OKC: SANTA FE SOUTH HS 507.53 534.42 919.89 76,510 0 3,115,456 486,548 3,678,513 3,999 E008 OKC: HARDING CHARTER 456.11 467.23 711.44 161,976 0 2,324,894 230,741 2,717,611 3,820 E010 OKC: HARDING FINE ARTS 327.21 343.78 523.97 1,915 0 1,705,840 177,397 1,885,153 3,598 E011 OKC: SANTA FE SOUTH MS 371.85 382.29 642.13 88,449 0 2,145,747 451,997 2,686,193 4,183 E012 OKC: KIPP REACH COLL. 264.54 277.85 398.85 443,923 0 1,320,841 338,172 2,102,936 5,272 E013 OKC: DOVE SCIENCE ES 288.00 298.86 479.15 20,398 0 1,561,328 189,703 1,771,428 3,697 E014 OKLAHOMA VIRTUAL ACADE 2,141.72 2,251.22 3,895.01 12,775 0 11,534,404 607,627 12,154,806 3,121 E016 OKC: HARPER ACADEMY 42.49 56.04 109.75 99 0 406,782 19,502 426,383 3,885 6001 SANTA FE SOUTH ES (CHA 466.23 475.83 812.28 26,747 0 2,792,028 676,819 3,495,594 4,303 DEBORAH BROWN (CHARTER 239.72 251.26 414.39 5,099 0 1,290,358 257,264 1,552,718 3,7411% ?003 DISCOVERY SCHOOLS OF 883.65 921.54 1,452.18 75,130 0 4,711,934 382,243 5,169,307 3,560 (3003 ALEXIS 46.67 48.85 74.63 1,569 0 235,158 14,433 251,158 3,365 6004 SANKOFA MIDDLE SCHL (C 111.49 117.33 182.47 7,174 0 598,202 92,009 697,386 3,822 T001 CHEROKEE IMMERSION CHA 118.05 125.08 181.46 1,320,895 0 255,975 24,630 1,601,499 8,826 TOTAL 11,896.28 12,351.20 20,376.55 3821,887 0 59,524,323 9,360,493 72,706,704 3,568 Revenue received from sponsoring district is I sted under state appropriated column. EXHIBIT OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 77572017 2017 Full Year Certi?ed Average Daily Attendance (ADA) For Apportionment Of The Proceeds Of: County Four Mill Levy 00 Art. X, Sec. 9, School Land Earnings 70 0.3. 615 Gross Production Tax 70 0.8. 1004 Motor Vehicle Collections 70 0.8. 1104 In compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution and Pursuant to the Oklahoma Statutes, is the Certi?ed Legal Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of the school districts for each County for the preceding year, to be used in the For The 2017 - 2018 School Year apportionment and distribution of the dedicated state local collections. Qualify for apportionment 2017 3 Certi?ed ?3 ?5 .72County ADA (3 5% 3 5 2 51 MUSKOGEE 1029 HILLDALE 1,750.92 51 MUSKOGEE 1046 BRAGGS 169.05 51 MUSKOGEE 1074 WARNER 765.83 51 MUSKOGEE 1088 FORUM 463.83 51 Total 12,269.59 52 NOBLE 1001 PERRY 1,080.66 52 NOBLE .1002 BILLINGS 70.45 52 NOBLE 1004 FRONTIER 353.63 - 52 NOBLE 1006 MORRISON 578.09 52 Total 2,082.38 53 NOWATA 1003 OKLAHOMA UNION 632.28 53 NOWATA 1040 NOWATA 833.36 53 NOWATA 1051 SOUTH COFFEYVILLE 243.24 53 Total 1,708.88 54 OKFUSKEE C029 BEARDEN 116.36 54 OKFUSKEE 1002 MASON 260.67 54 OKFUSKEE 1014 PAD-EN 248.29 54 OKFUSKEE 1026 OKEMAH 735.76 54 OKFUSKEE 1031 WELEETKA 401.31 54 OKFUSKEE 1054 GRAHAM-DUSTIN 176.44 54 Total 1,988.83 55 OKLAHOMA C029 OAKDALE 629.51 55 OKLAHOMA C074 CRUTCHO 327.78 55 1001 PUTNAM CITY 18,192.80 55 OKLAHOMA 1003 LUTHER 737.85 55 OKLAHOMA 1004 CHOCTAW-NICOMA PARK 5,373.04 55 OKLAHOMA 1006 DEER CREEK 5,661.80 55 OKLAHOMA 1007 HARRAH 2,080.91 55 OKLAHOMA 1009 JONES 1,077.63 55 OKLAHOMA 1012 EDMOND 23,148.15 55 1037 MILLWOOD 809.59 55 OKLAHONIA 1041 WESTERN HEIGHTS 3,223.52 55 OKLAHOMA 1052 MIDWEST CITY-DEL CITY 13,306.93 55 OKLAHOMA 1053 CROOKED OAK 1,115.16 55 OKLAHOMA 1088 BETHANY 1,642.04 55 1089 OKLAHOMA CITY 43,587.89 55 Total 120,914.60 56 OKMULGEE C011 TWIN HILLS 340.38 56 OKWLGEE 1001 OKMULGEE 1,355.70 56 OKMULGEE 1002 HENRYETTA 1,153.01 10 OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 7 (5/201? 2017 Full Year Certi?ed Average Daily Attendance (ADA) For Apportionment Of The Proceeds Of: County Four Mill Levy O.C. Art. X, Sec. 9, School Land Earnings 70 0.3. 615 Gross Production Tax 70 0.8. 1004 Motor Vehicle Collections 70 0.3. 1104 In compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution and Pursuant to the Oklahoma Statutes, is the Certi?ed Legal Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of the school districts for each County for the preceding year, to be used in the apportionment and distribution of the dedicated state local collections. For The 2017 - 2018 School Year Qualify for appoltionment 2017 3 Certi?County District ADA 8 :3 3 5 68 SEQUOYAH 1002 VIAN 876.37 68 SEQUOYAH 1003 MULDROW 1,394.77 63 SEQUOYAH 1004 GANS 418.62 68 SEQUOYAH 1005 ROLAND 927.3]. 68 SEQUOYAH I006 GORE 471.93 68 SEQUOYAH 1007 CENTRAL 482.55 63 Total 7,744-91 69 STEPHENS C032 GRANDVIEW 137.77 69 STEPHENS 1001 DUNCAN 3,303.86 69 STEPHENS 1002 COMANCHE 932.78 69 STEPHENS 1003 WRLOW 1,344.38 69 STEPHENS 1015 434.68 69 STEPHENS 1021 EMPIRE 513.26 69 STEPHENS 1034 CENTRAL HIGH 377.67 59 STEPHENS 1042 BRAY-DOYLE 331.30 69 Total 7,430.70 70 TEXAS C009 OPTTNIA 61.52 70 TEXAS C080 STRAIGHT 35.17 70 TEXAS 1001 YARBROUGH 123.29 70 TEXAS 1003 GUYMON 2,877.56 70 TEXAS 1015 HARDESTY 91.33 70 TEXAS 1023 HOOKLER 639.41 70 TEXAS 1053 TYRONE 222.45 70 TEXAS 1060 GOODWELL 226.28 70 TEXAS 1061 TEXT-TOMA 243.99 70 Total 4,521.00 71 TILLMAN 1008 TTPTON 265.42 71 TILLMAN 1009 DAVIDSON 51.67 71 TILLMAN 1153 FREDERICK 812.04 71 1249 GRANDFIELD 217.43 71 Total 1,346.61 72 TULSA C015 KEYSTONE 307.20 72 TULSA 1001 TULSA 38,233.29 72 TULSA 1002 SAND SPRINGS 4,846.64 72 TULSA 1003 BROKEN ARROW 17,788.42 72 TULSA 1004 BIXBY 5,391.22 72 TULSA 1005 JENKS 11,324.24 72 TULSA 1006 COLLINSVILLE 2,658.09 72 TULSA 1007 SKIATOOK 2,375.07 72 TULSA 1009 UNION 14,365.14 14