Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, requiring the ODM Monitoring monitoring, NLRSD motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School, and LRSD 1996-97 second quarter status report

District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) brief in opposition to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, declaration of Tristan Greene in opposition to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and NLRSD's motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School; District Court, memorandum; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, joint motion to postpone argument; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District?s (PCSSD's) request for extension of time; District Court, reply of the Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua intervenors' motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, alternatively, for the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, order; District Court, judgment; District Court, order; District Court, motion for reconsideration; Court of Appeals, motion to dismiss; Court of Appeals, opposition to motion to dismiss; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 first quarter status report addendum program planning and budget document for desegregation programs and Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 second quarter status report program planning and budget document for desegregation programs; District Court, two notices of appeal; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, further motion to enlarge time The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. FEB 1 S 1897 FILED - - _JLS....OISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CMURllJ DISTRICT ARKANSAS Qfr1Cf. OF DESEGREGATiON MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB 1 O 1997 WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: PLAINTIFF DEP. CLERK v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. FEB 1 8 1997 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD's MOTIONOc"EGREGAOFFJIOICtl N~FO NITO . FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUES OF 1.:i 1 1 RING HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING I. INTRODUCTION In their motion, which presumably relates solely to the "issues" of health insurance matching, special education and loss funding, the Districts level a broad, scattershot attack directed at Acts 917 and 1194 of 1995. These and other new statutes concerning school finance were designed to comply with a State Court's order that requires a funding system that reduces the disparity between the amount of combined state and local funds available to wealthy and poor school districts for the education of children. No matter how it is accomplished, compliance with the State Court's directive to reduce the disparity of available local and state resources between wealthy and poor districts necessarily requires, in one manner or another, that poor school districts be treated somewhat more advantageously in terms of state aid as compared to wealthy districts like the three districts in Pulaski County. As shown in ADE's response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the "teacher retirement," issue, the State chose to enact a new funding system that ensured that all school districts, including the very poorest, had a minimum level of combined state and local funds for the education of children while, at the same time, leaving the three Pulaski County districts unscathed.1 Nonetheless, in what might be viewed by some as a pure "money grab,"2 these Districts now argue that while they are ''winners" under the new funding statutes (in the sense that their total state aid for this year exceeds their total state aid for 1995-96) they deserve even more state aid for 1996-97 because poorer districts in the State got a larger relative increase in state aid than they did. The Districts press this argument without regard to the fact that the Settlement Agreement clearly contemplates that the State can make generally applicable changes to its funding statutes even if the changes 1 LRSD and NLRSD, in particular, have presented no evidence to indicate that they are receiving less state aid this year as compared to last year. Further, neither LRSD nor NLRSD has even argued that it would have received more total state aid for 1996-97 if the old "Act 34" funding scheme were still in place. Even if one were to accept the questionable method of comparison used in Exhibit "F" to PCSSD's December 23, 1996 Reply brief, PCSSD can only argue that it received $106,579 less state aid for this year as compared to last year. 2 These districts often complain that other school officials throughout the State view these Districts as "greedy." These districts do little to discourage such a view when, as they have done here, they file motions asking this Court to force the State to (a) reimburse them for more than 100% of their actual teacher retirement costs, (b) provide them with the same percentage increase -in state funding as that received by poorer school districts, (c) reimburse them at a rate of$57 per day for students in residential treatment facilities when the facilities themselves will only bill the Districts $44 per day for such students; and ( d) reinstate "loss funding" for them when each of the Districts is eligible for and will receive growth funding for 1996-97. 2 - serves to "reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts." Settlement Agreement, ILL. The question of whether the Settlement Agre,ernent mandates the absurd result these Districts seek is for another day. For now, this Court must address the Districts' motion for summary judgment. As di~russed below, the motion cannot be granted. I. The Motion Must Be Denied Or, In The Alternative, This Court Must Again Abswn Pending Final Resolution Of The Lake View Case In response to the Districts' initial motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement, in which these Districts clearly argued that the new funding statutes - did not comply with the Lake View Court's 1994 orders, ADE requested that this Court abstain until a final judgment was rendered in Lake View. Thereafter, in a "Preb.earing Brief' filed November 18, 1996, PCSSD essentially withdrew its state law and/or Lake View compliance claims, saying that the Districts only wished to pursue issues "separate and distinct from the constitutional and compliance issues raised" in Lake View. The Districts now appear to have changed their minds; they again ask this Court to intrude upon the Lake View court's jurisdiction and/or evaluate the new funding system under state law. See 1he Districts' Brief in Support of this motion at p. 5: "[H]ad Judge Imber ruled on the new formula, she would have found the 3 - changes objectionable and neither fair, rational, nor reasonable under the State constitutional rational basis test." The Districts' attempt to litigate state law issues in this Court must be summarily rejected. Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution this Court lacks jurisdiction to fore~ state officials to comply with state law, even if the state law claim is pendent to a federal law claim. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 79 L.Ed.2d 67, 92 (1984). Moreover, even if this Court could exercise some concurrent federal jurisdiction over Lake View compliance issues, ADE renews its request that this Court abstain from considering the Districts' motions pending a final judgment in the Lake View case. II. Summary Judgment Is Inappropriate Because There Are Numerous Disputed Issues Of Material Fact In ruling on the Districts' motions for summary judgment this Court may not resolve disputed factual issues, but rather must simply determine as an initial matter whether any material facts are in dispute. As outlined more fully in ADE's response to the Districts' Separate Statement Of Undisputed Facts, there are numerous issues of material fact in dispute. Accordingly, the Districts' motion must be denied. 4 m. Health Insurance and Special Education For the same reasons the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement must be denied, this motion as it relates to health insurance and special education must also be denied. The Districts have failed to present any admissible evidence showing the effect, if any, that the elimination of the "weighting" system for special education funding has had on them, nor have they cited this Court to any provision of the Settlement Agreement that requires the State to maintain some form of''weighting" system for special education students. Further, the District's newly-raised claim concerning the State's per diem reimbursement rate for children in residential treatment centers must be - dismissed for lack of a justiciable case or controversy. It is undisputed that all of the residential treatment facilities within the Districts have agreed to charge the Districts, at most, the per diem rate of reimbursement established by the State for 1996-97. In short, the State continues to fund 100% of the per diem rate for children in residential treatment centers as it did in 1995-96. Unless and until that situation changes, there is not even arguably a case or controversy for this Court to resolve. IV. Loss Funding The Districts' attempt to resurrect loss funding must fail for three basic reasons. 5 First, loss funding has not been completely eliminated. The new funding scheme has retained a "loss funding" feature. Under Act 917, a district's current year's equalization funding is based upon the prior year's ADM, thereby giving any district with declining ADM a one-year period of continued funding to enable it to "adjust" to the drop in enrollment. Second, the Districts, who bear the burden of proof, have supplied no evidence whatsoever to support their argument that the elimination of loss funding will cause their students to leave for adjoining school districts. There are many reasons why enrollment might decline in these Districts, reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with "loss funding" or "growth funding;" and not all students that leave the Pulaski County Districts go on to attend school in the surrounding counties. For example, parents may choose to move their children to private schools within the County when they become fed up with the effects of a teacher strike and a school district's inability to come to terms with its teachers. Enrollment may decline due in part to changing demographics, such as an increase in the average age of a district's inhabitants and a concomitantly lower birth rate. Some students leave when their parents move elsewhere in the State or even out of State to take advantage of lower crime rates or better job opportunities. The Districts' argument that the elimination of loss funding causes them to lose students is not only a non sequitor, it flies in the face of Dr. Don Stewart's 6 - testimony in September of 1994 that parents do not decide to take their students out of PCS SD schools based upon the existence or nonexistence ofloss funding or growth funding for PCSSD or any other district. Third, in a crowning bit of irony, all three of the Pulaski County Districts are eligible for and will receive growth funding for 1996-97. The Districts' argument that the Settlement Agreement requires the "reinstatement" ofloss funding under these circumstances is plainly frivolous. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, ADE respectfully requests that the Districts' motion be denied. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General BY:~ TIMO .GR,#95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed this 10th day of February, 1997 by first-class mail, to the following person(s): M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON & JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 8 John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. .J. 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL & STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. TIIO1\.1PSON & LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 FILED FEB 1 8 1997 OFflCE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING u.s OIHRICT cou~T EA~Tcou "'C:Tn~T ~ ,,..., .. ,c:,a.~ INTIIElJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F-B 1 O 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS t . " WESTERN DMSION JM~[:; W. MClJUl'\IVl"\JI\, liL.:.RK. By: ___ --:::01'-::-, ::-:-CL;:;;-ER:;--~ LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS DECLARATION OF TRISTAN GREENE IN OPPOSITION TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUES OF HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING I, Tristan D. Greene. declare as follows: 1. I have been the Assistant to the Assistant Director for Finance and Administration for the Arkansas Department of Education since April of 1995. During the course of my work for ADE, I have become familiar with the laws and regulations conrem.ing the system of public school finance in Arkansas, and, in particular, the operation of and calculation of state aid outcomes under the State's prior school funding statutes and under the school funding statutes enacted by the Arkansas General Assembly during the 1995 legislative session. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are ADE's December 27, 1996 printouts reflecting projected State Aid for LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD for 1996- 97, based on 1995-96 three quarter average ADM and adjusted for growth in the 1 - 1996-97 first quarter. Unless one of these Districts reports (a) a clerical error in its previous year's attendance reports, or (b) an error in its abstract of assessment, or (c) an error in its previous year's miscellaneous funds, or (d) a clerical error in its scheduled bonded debt payment or ( e) an error in its 1996-97 first quarter attendance report, the amounts reflected in the ~ecember 27, 1996 printouts will accurately reflect the amount of regular state aid distributed to the three Districts for 1996-97. Among other things, these printouts show: a. LRSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 247.74, and LRSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 744,183 for 1996-97; b. PCSSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 27.02, and PCSSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 81,165 for 1996-97; and c. NLRSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 140.79, and NLRSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 422,917 for 1996-97. 3. Due to a .. quirk" in the new funding formula that did not require the Newark School District to raise its millage rate (Section 7(f) of Act 917), the Newark School District will receive approximately $27,000 in Additional Base Funding for 1996-97. However, because Newark's millage has now increased due 2 - to the enactment of Amendment 7 4 to the Arkansas Constitution, and assuming that the operative provisions of Act 917 are not materially altered during the 1997 legislative session, Newark will receive no Additional Base Funding for 1997-98. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a ranking of school districts by total voted millage on taxable real property, which repects such millage rates in effect in each district as of September, 1996. It shows that four districts have higher total voted millages on real property rates than LRSD. However, after the millage rollbacks pursuant to Amendment 59 of the Arkansas Constitution are taken into account, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will fall in the ranking. 5. Using information supplied by the Child Nutrition section of ADE - and October, 1996 ADM figures, I have prepared a table showing the number of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals in each school district in Arkansas ( as of October, 1996) and the concentration of such students in each district expressed as a percentage of October 1996 ADM. The table is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. Using information derived from the 1990 Federal Decennial Census, I have prepared a ranking of school districts by the percentage of households in each district that are below the 1989 poverty level. The ranking is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 3 7. I have reviewed Exhibit "F' to the Districts' December 23, 1996 Reply Brief. It is incorrect Among other things, on the first page of Exhibit "F" the third column purports to show a "1996-97 M-M adjustment" of state aid that to my knowledge will not be made by ADE. Moreover, Exhibit F is methodologically unsound in that it purports to be a comparison of revenue PCS SD received from the State or paid by the State on behalf of PCS SD in 1995- 96 and 1996-97, and yet columns 2 and 3 of page l of Exhibit F purports to add a district cost into the equation. On page 2 of Exhibit Fan incorrect "1995-96 3Q ADM'' figure is listed. 8. In my declaration filed December 13, 1996, I erroneously stated that - the Table Rate used to calculate M-M incentive funding for the three Districts for 1995-96 was: LRSD: $ 977.28; PCSSD: $ 1889.51; and NLRSD: $ 1686.21. While those were the correct Table Rates that were used to calculate ordinary state aid in 1995-96, the Table Rates used to calculate M-M incentive funding were as follows: LRSD: $ 1064.96; PCSSD: $ 1904.18; and NLRSD: $ 1695.42. 9. The photocopied table from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette attached to the Districts' brief does not contain accurate information. Assuming the newspaper accurately reported information that may have been provided by ADE, the table at best reflects 1996-97 state aid estimates made on or before the end of June, 1996. Actual 1996-97 state aid calculations differ. For example: 4 (a) Compare PCSSD's 1995-96 K-12 three quarter average ADM reflected on Exhibit A hereto (20,025.77) with the "students" figure for PCSSD in the newspaper table (20,080); (b) Compare the total ofNLRSD's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding, General Facilities Funding, Debt Serv~e Supplement Payment and Growth Facilities funding as reflected on Exhibit A hereto($ 23,784,504) to the "Projected 1996-97 State Aid" figure in the newspaper table for NLRSD ($ 23,697,999); (c) Compare the total ofLRSD's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding as reflected on Exhibit A hereto($ 41,530,927) to the "Projected 1996-97 State Aid" figure in the newspaper table for LRSD ($41,513,676); and (d) Compare the total of the Lake View School District's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding, General Facilities Funding and Debt Service Supplemental Payment ($ 706,648) as reflected in Lake View's December 27, 1996 printout (attached hereto as Exhibit E) to the "Projected 1996-97 State Aid" figure in the newspaper table for Lake View($ 709,486). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 10th day of February, 1997, at Little Rock, Arkansas .. 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed this 10th day of February, 1997 by first-class mail, to the following person(s): M. Samuel Jones Ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY., ELDREDGE& CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON & JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 grccndc2.doc John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. -. 1723 Broadway -.. little Rock., AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL & STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON & LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O.Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 /e-~ - ' ~ ~ Timothy G.Qr 6 - (_ STATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-01 COUNTY: PULASKI l. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12. 1ST QTR) 2. REAL PROPERTY AN S 1.185.286.533.00 75% MISC FUNDS $102.158.00 DISTRICT: Little Rock 22,231 .64 ~ 22,47938 . PERSONAL PROPERTY AN $444,714.987.00 M & 0 MILLS AVAILABLE 39.82 3. 4. 5. TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT .6. W7. ( . 8. 9. BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING PER STUDENT 1996-97 ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING "" 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. _18. 19. 20. 21. AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL F ACILlTIES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING ISOLA TED AJD CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILlTIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST A TE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL & ST ATE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOT AL LOCAL & STA TE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING EXHIBIT ' ' A UTILITY PROPERTY AN $82.309.700.00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX -0.01259 $ s s s s $ s s s $ $ $ $ $ $ s s $ $ 42.053. 782.00 1.891.62 3.759.72 1.868.10 41.530.927.00 41.530.927.00 4.025.593.00 0.00 744.183.00 0.00 0.00 66.956.758.00 42.275. I I 0.00 4,859.20 3,887.36 0.00 STATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-02 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRlCT: N. Little Rock 1. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12. 1ST QTR) 8.982.18 9..122.97 .. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. - 7. ( 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. REAL PROPERTY AN $301.59).503.00 75% MISC FUNDS $12.655.00 PERSONAL PROPERTY AN SI 00,003.317 .00 M & 0 MILLS AV Al LAB LE 39.37 TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST ATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING PER STUDENT 1996-97 STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL FACILITIES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING JSOLA TED AID CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILITIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST A TE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL & STA TE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOTAL LOCAL& STATE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING UTILITY PROPERTY AN $23.8 I 6.6 79 .00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX 0.55281 s $ s s s $ $ s $ $ s $ $ s s s s s s I 0.435.236.00 1.161.77 3.759.72 2.597.95 .23.335.255.00 .23.335.255.00 .2.261.886.00 173.790.00 4::?2.917.00 190.733.00 84.726.00 16,430.355.00 13.931.962.00 4.424.25 3.887.36 0.00 ST ATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-03 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: Pulaski Co. Spec. 1. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12, JSTQTR) 20,025.77 20,052.79 2. ... .J. 4. 5. 6. .7. (8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. REAL PROPERTY AN $558,008,639.00 75% MISC FUNDS $73.473.00 PERSONAL PROPERTY AN S 190.866. I 69.00 M & 0 MILLS AV AI LAB LE 41.04 TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST A TE EQUALIZA TJON FUNDING PER STUDENT I 996-97 ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL F ACILITJES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING ISOLATED AID CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILITIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST ATE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOTAL LOCAL & ST ATE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOT AL LOCAL & ST A TE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING UTILITY PROPERTY AN $3 7. 720.003.00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX 0.65422 $ s $ $ $ $ s s s $ s s $ $ s $ s s $ 19.345.045.00 966.01 3.759.72 2.793.71 55.946.194.00 55.946.194.00 5.422.865.00 458.544.00 81.165.00 614.706.00 0.00 31.734.178.00 56.485.903 .00 4,399.39 3.887.36 0.00 . ' \ 1 HOWARD 2 UNION 3 UNION .t WASHINGTON & PULASKI 6 PULASKI 7. UNION t 8 DESHA 9 PULASKI 10 FAULKNER \ 11 UNION 12 UNION 13 COLUMBIA 14 POINSETT 15 SEBASTIAN 16 GRANT 17 MILLER 18 IZARD 19 SEBASTIAN 20 MILLER 21 BOONE 22 FAULKNER - 23 FAULKNER 24 MILLER 25 BOONE 26 JEFFERSON 27 RANDOLPH 28 BAXTER 29 WASHINGTON 30 LONOKE 31 UNION 32 BENTON 33 SALINE 34 JACKSON 35 GARLAND 36 CLARK 37 HOT SPRING 38 SEBASTIAN 39 CRITTENDEN 40 HOT SPRING 41 SEBASTIAN 42 SALINE 43 FAULKNER 44 HOWARD 45 GARLAND 46 MARION 47 CRAWFORD - 48 BENTON 49 SEARCY 50 POPE 51 BENTON 52 BENTON , 33 JEFFERSON RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST UMPIRE 56.40 HUTTIG 34.30 MT HOLLY 44.00 FAYETTEVILLE 17.30 PULASKJ CO SPEC 34.00 LITTLE ROCK 27.80 UNION 21.80 ARKANSAS CITY ~ 35.00 NO LITTLE ROCK 29.40 GUY-PERKINS 6.40 SMACKOVER 24.70 STRONG 25.70 WALKER 8.10 WEINER 36.40 HARTFORD* 22.20 POYEN 36.20 GENOA CENTRAL 20.70 CALICO ROCK 21.00 HACKETT 13.00 TEXARKANA 16.30 OMAHA 24.60 VILONIA 25.90 MT.VERNON/ENOLA 33.00 FOUKE 12.10 LEAD HILL 32.00 WHITEHALL 24.90 BIGGERS-REYNO 28.00 COTTER 37.00 ELKINS 15.90 HUMNOKE 18.00 NORPHLET 10.20 PEA RIDGE 16.10 BAUXITE 26.50 SWIFTON 34.85 LAKESIDE 13.30 ARKADELPHIA 22.60 MAGNET COVE 28.00 FORT SMITH 33.30 EARLE 19.60 GLEN ROSE 20.30 GREENWOOD 14.90 HARMONY GROVE 10.40 CONWAY 14.80 DIERKS 24.60 HOT SPRINGS 8.20 MARION CO 19.60 VAN BUREN 13.60 SILOAM SPRS 16.30 WITTS SPRINGS 6.10 POTTSVILLE 35.70 BENTONVILLE 7.66 ROGERS 17.00 PINE BLUFF 13.10 Page 1 EXHIBIT B 2.00 58.40 19.30 53.60 5.80 49.80 3.00 23.70 44.00 9.90 43.90 1.00 15.10 43.90 0.00 21.20 43.00 1.00 6.50 42.50 3.00 9.50 41.90 3.00 31.60 41.00 16.30 41.00 15.20 40.90 31.90 40.00 3.50 39.90 17.10 39.30 3.00 39.20 18.50 39.20 18.00 39.00 26.00 39.00 3.00 19.60 38.90 2.00 11.50 38.10 12.10 38.00 5.00 38.00 2.00 23.90 38.00 6.00 38.00 12.80 37.70 3.00 6.50 37.50 37.00 1.70 19.40 37.00 19.00 37.00 2.00 24.80 37.00 20.90 37.00 10.30 36.80 1.80 36.65 2.00 21.30 36.60 2.00 11.90 36.50 8.50 36.50 2.50 0.70 36.50 3.00 13.60 36.20 15.80 36.10 21.20 36.10 25.60 36.00 21.20 36.00 2.00 9.40 36.00 27.80 36.00 16.30 35.90 22.30 35.90 1.50 18.00 35.80 3.00 26.70 35.80 35.70 28.00 35.66 1.00 17.30 35.30 I 1.00 21.20 35.30 54 BENTON 55 WASHINGTON 56 WOODRUFF 57 BENTON 58 DALLAS 59 WASHINGTON 60 PIKE 61 WASHINGTON 62 CRAWFORD 63 OUACHITA 64 NEVADA 65 ARKANSAS 66 YELL 67 INDEPENDENCE 68 LONOKE 69 CLEBURNE 70 SALINE 71 POPE 72 PIKE 73 POLK 74 DREW 75 PIKE - 76 CHICOT 77 COLUMBIA 78 GARLAND 79 CLEBURNE 80 CRAIGHEAD 81 INDEPENDENCE 82 POLK 83 OUACHITA 84 UNION 85 WASHINGTON 86 JOHNSON 87 JOHNSON 88 FRANKLIN 89 LOGAN 90 COLUMBIA 91 DREW 92 CLARK 93 YELL 94 LAFAYETTE 95 LINCOLN 96 UNION 97 FAULKNER 98 WASHINGTON 99 POLK 100 HEMPSTEAD - 101 LITTLE R.IVER 102 WASHINGTON 103. JEFFERSON 104 LOGAN 105 YELL 106 FULTot-: RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST DECATUR 19.00 SPRINGDALE 18.20 COTTON PLANT 20.00 GENTRY 18.70 SPARKMAN 33.60 WEST FORK 9.10 CENTERPOINT 6.70 LINCOLN .. 14.70 ALMA 14.20 BEARDEN 7.10 NEVADA CO 4.70 GILLETT 9.00 DARDANELLE 28.10 CUSHMAN* 9.80 LONOKE 13.35 QUITMAN 20.40 PARON 15.60 ATKINS 25.40 DELIGHT 13.36 ACORN 17.40 DREW CENTRAL 26.10 MURFREESBORO 23.90 LAKESIDE 20.80 EMERSON 19.10 LAKE HAMIL TON 32.40 HEBER SPRINGS 11.27 BROOKLAND 17.90 SULPHUR ROCK 14.70 HATFIELD 20.00 CAMDEN/FAIRVIEW 22.50 JUNCTION CITY 16.00 WINSLOW 31.00 CLARKSVILLE * 15.30 OARK* 9.90 PLEASANT VIEW 25.00 BOONEVILLE 17.00 TAYLOR 12.90 MONTICELLO 15.10 GURDON 20.00 OLA 24.50 LEWISVILLE 12.20 GRADY 21.80 PARKERS CHAPEL 26.70 GREENBRIER 21.60 GREENLAND 21.70 WICKES 14.30 SPRING HILL* 17.20 ASHDOWN 7.00 PRAIRIE GROVE 20.50 AL THEIMER UNIFIED 14.60 PARIS* 15.50 PLAINVIEW-ROVER 17.04 SALEM 16.23 Page2 16.20 35.20 16.90 35.10 15.00 35.00 16.30 35.00 1.40 35.00 25.90 35.00 28.30 35.00 3.00 17.30 35.00 20.80 35.00 27.80 34.90 30.20 34.90 25.80 34.80 3.00 3.60 34.70 24.70 34.50 3.00 18.05 34.40 14.00 34.40 3.00 15.70 34.30 8.80 34.20 3.00 17.80 34.16 3.00 13.60 34.00 7.90 34.00 3.00 7.10 34.00 2.00 11.20 34.00 14.80 33.90 1.50 33.90 3.00 19.53 33.80 1.00 14.80 33.70 18.90 33.60 13.40 33.40 3.00 7.70 33.20 17.00 33.00 2.00 33.00 1.40 16.30 33.00 2.00 21.10 33.00 8.00 33.00 16.00 33.00 20.10 33.00 1.00 16.90 33.00 1.00 12.00 33.00 8.50 33.00 3.00 17.60 32.80 11.00 32.80 6.10 32.80 2.00 9.10 32.70 11.00 32.70 1.20 17.20 32.70 3.00 12.50 32.70 25.60 32.60 2.00 10.10 32.60 17.80 32.40 16.90 32.40 15.30 32.34 16.00 32.23 RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST 107 LOGAN SCRANTON* 15.32 16.90 32.22 \ 108 CRITTENDEN TURRELL 8.67 23.50 32.17 109 MARION YELLVILLE-SUMMIT 15.21 3.00 13.80 32.01 110 MONTGOMERY ODEN 21.60 10.40 32.00 111 CRAWFORD MOUNTAINBURG 19.60 2.00 10.40 32.00 112 HOWARD MINERAL SPRINGS 10.40 2.10 19.50 32.00 113 IZARD IZARD COUNTY 15.00 17.00 32.00 11, NEWTON DEER : 12.20 2.70 17.10 32.00 115 CONWAY NEMOVISTA 7.80 3.00 21.20 32.00 116 IZARD MELBOURNE* 5.80 2.00 24.20 32.00 117 WOODRUFF MCCRORY 32.00 32.00 118 BAXTER NORFORK 14.00 18.00 32.00 119 JOHNSON WESTSIDE 12.00 20.00 32.00 120 LINCOLN STAR CITY 19.20 2.00 10.80 32.00 121 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND 9.90 3.00 19.10 32.00 122 DALLAS CARTHAGE 32.00 32.00 123 CROSS WYNNE 9.90 3.00 19.10 32.00 124 GARLAND FT.LAKE 20.00 3.00 9.00 32.00 125 DESHA DUMAS 31.90 31.90 126 LAWRENCE LYNN 19.00 3.00 9.80 31.80 127 POLK VAN COVE 24.10 2.00 5.70 31.80 128 JEFFERSON WATSON CHAPEL 24.30 3.00 4.50 31.80 - 129 CARROLL EUREKASPR 11.25 0.50 20.00 31.75 130 CROSS CROSS COUNTY 8.90 2.00 20.80 31.70 131 CLEVELAND RISON 8.30 2.00 21.40 31.70 132 WHITE SEARCY 19.90 1.00 10.80 31.70 133 VAN BUREN SHIRLEY 12.00 0.00 19.60 31.60 134 INDEPENDENCE BA TES VILLE * 14.75 1.00 15.80 31.55 135 WASHINGTON FARMINGTON 13.90 17.50 31.40 136 CARROLL BERRYVILLE 25.50 5.90 31.40 137 HEMPSTEAD SARATOGA 10.20 1.42 19.70 31.32 138 PHILLIPS LAKEVIEW 8.30 23.00 31.30 139 BAXTER MT. HOME 16.20 15.10 31.30 140 STONE RURAL SPECIAL 23.20 8.10 31.30 141 CLEBURNE WILBURN 16.90 2.00 12.40 31 .30 142 HEMPSTEAD BLEVINS 12.40 18.90 31.30 143 JEFFERSON OOLLARWAY 11.38 19.90 31.28 144 FRANKLIN OZARK* 13.10 18.10 31.20 145 WHITE BALD KNOB 7.90 23.30 31.20 146 HOWARD NASHVILLE 23.00 0.50 7.70 31.20 147 GARLAND JESSIEVILLE 15.80 15.30 31.10 148 PHILLIPS HELENA W-HELE 9.55 21.50 31.05 149 LONOKE CABOT 9.30 1.00 20.70 31.00 150 GARLAND CUTTER MORNING 14.00 2.00 15.00 31.00 151 CHICOT EUDORA 14.50 3.00 13.50 31.00 152 LONOKE CARLISLE 20.40 2.00 8.60 31.00 153 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON 22.50 1.00 7.50 31.00 154 YELL WESTERN YELL 19.00 1.90 10.10 31.00 155 YELL DANVILLE 11 .00 20.00 31.00 156 LAWRENCE RIVER VALLEY 22.00 2.00 7.00 31.00 157 LONOKE ENGLAND 16.93 3.00 11.00 30.93 158 CRITTENDEN MARION 9.10 21.80 30.90 159 SHARP WILLIFORD* 17.00 3.00 10.90 30.90 Page 3 160 VAN BUREN 161 GARLAND 162 SEVIER 163 ASHLEY 164 INDEPENDENCE 165 MILLER 166 CONWAY 167 RANDOLPH 168 NEWTON 169 SEBASTIAN 170 RANDOLPH 171 CRAIGHEAD 172 POLK 173 SALINE 174 GRANT 175 CRAIGHEAD 176 POINSETT 177 ASHLEY 178 CRAWFORD 179 MADISON 180 CONWAY 181 CHICOT - 182 BOONE 183 CRAIGHEAD -- 184 GREENE 185 OUACHITA 186 WHITE 187 CLAY 188 CRAIGHEAD 189 MISSISSIPPI 190 POPE 191 HEMPSTEAD 192 PRAIRIE 193 PERRY 194 MONROE 195 GREENE 196 WHITE 197 MADISON 198 CLEBURNE 199 LOGAN - 200 CRAWFORD 201 VAN BUREN 202 DALLAS 203 POINSETT 204 GREENE 205 FRANKLIN 206 FAULKNER -