This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED V. LR-C-82-866 SEP 3 1997 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS omc OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORIN6INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PCSSD SEPARATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE STATE FUNDING FORMULA The PCSSD for its motion states: INTERVENORS 1. As a result of the change from Act 34 to Act 917, including the overall funding increases which accompanied Act - 917, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 in State aid this past year as compared to what it would have received had Act 34 continued in existence at the higher appropriation levels. In contrast, the average increase in State aid per district was 12.64% under Act 917. 2. The case law, the orders of this Court, and the Settlement Agreement prohibit this disparity. 3. This Court should order that the State aid received by the PCSSD this past school year be increased to the state average increase of 12.64%, an increase of $6,496,896. 4. In the alternative, this Court should award the PCSSD the $5.5 million it lost when one compares Act 34 outcomes to Act 917 outcomes. # 5. This motion is accompanied by an updated Affidavit of Dr. Donald Stewart, together with accompanying exhibits, additional exhibits, and by a memorandum brief. The PCSSD incorporates by reference its previous statements of material facts and orders of this Court. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it be funded for the previous year at the level of the State average or, in the alternative, that it be awarded the sums it lost when Act 917 replaced Act 34, for its costs, attorneys' fees and all proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By-;n_.xJ_~ M .... ~~= Jones I}o/ (76060) At~for Pcpn 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September J- , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson & Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J : j hsl 0S0 . 030 umuel Jn 3 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTL!:MENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989) EXHIBIT I .L - K. District Budgets The Districts may utilize the- receipt of funds paid pursuant to this settlement to balance previous years' budgets and if this is done, neither the previous year's deficit nor such fund usage will be regarded as a violation of State law. L. Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or .th is settlement. The State will enact - no legislation which has a substantia~ adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. M. Rededicated Millages The court ordered on December 29, 1986 (reinstated Jan. 7, 1987) the rededication of certain millages of the Districts. It was the intent of the Districts and the court that all millages _due to expire before the year 2007 be rededicated. The - motion seeking the extension, however, failed to list 98 10 fN TI-IE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR rnE EIGHTI-1 CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT V. LITIT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLEES ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLANTS V. LITIT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLEES Nos. 97-1794EALR. 97-1855EALR. 97-2394EALRand 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Hon. Susan Webber Wright APPELLANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S OPENING BRIEF I WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General By: TIMOlHY G. GAUGER Arkansas Bar No. 95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l ( 50 l) 682-2007 EXHIBIT Finally, and most important, the changes in funding of teacher retirement and health insurance matching differ significantly from the workers' compensation issue in that, unlike-the change in workers' compensation funding (which involved a change in only one discrete aspect of the funding scheme while leaving the rest of the scheme unchanged) the district court had before it a wholesale change in the funding scheme, in effect an entirely new funding system designed from scratch. ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit At the very minimum, the fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are "winners" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 24 'llnitea States Court of ~ppeafs for tk 'Eigl,,tli Circuit NO. 97-1794 ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL APPELLANT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL APPELLEES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge ~ppe{{ant's tJJrie,f JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR. #66040 THOMPSON AND LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Telephone: 501-785-2867 Facsimile: 501-782-8046 Attorney for Appellant 111 School Districts EXHIBIT I 3 THE DISTRICT COURTS ORDER SHOULD BE REVERSED AS A MATIER OF LAW The Districts' Motion for Summary Judgment challenges that portion of the new school funding formula they view as unfavorable while ignoring other portions from which they would admittedly benefit. The Districts receive more state aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Greene Declaration, App. 170. By petitioning the District Court for orders directing the state to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have the Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of "equal treatment" to which all students are entitled.4 While the Settlement Agreement permits "Fair - and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability . . . ". Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement March, 1997, Add. 18, the Districts suggest, by implication, such an adjustment should not apply to them simply because they believe they need more money. There is probably not a school district in Arkansas that does not believe it needs more money. However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. Du Pree and lake View. 4 DuPree v. Alma, 65 l S.W.2d 90, 279 Ark. 340 ( 1983). App. 172 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SC~OOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS My name is Don Stewart and I am Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs of the PCSSD. Attached as Exhibit A to this affidavit is information I received from the Arkansas Department of Education which permitted me to compare total state aid received by each school district in - 1995-96 to total state aid they received for 1996-97. From this information, I was able to prepare Exhibit 11 B11 which demonstrates that the PCSSD experienced a net increase in State aid this year of only 1.12 percent. This compares to a state total of 12.09 percent increase per district which percentage rises to 12.64 percent when the PCSSD State aid is subtracted from the state-wide totals. Attached as Exhibit "C" is a letter the PCSSD received from Mr. Kunkel, Coordinator for Local Fiscal Services requesting the return of growth funding in the amount of $81,165. As requested, this sum of money has been returned by the PCSSD to the State and the PCSSD will receive no growth funding for 1996-97. However, were loss funding still in place, the PCSSD would be eligible for loss funding for the 1996-97 school year. Exhibit 11 0 11 is the latest printout received by the PCSSD from EXHIBIT I 4 - the State. The total sum set forth was adjusted by the State to reflect the overpayment of che $81,165. I certify.that che calculations set forth in these various exhibits were e1~her directly performed by the Arkansas Department of Education or were calculaced from databases furnished to me by the Arkansas Department of Education. It is entirely possible chat some of the State aid levels for some of the districts reflected in Exhibit "A" may have changed since the State furnished its dacabase to the PCSSD. However, for purposes of the present analysis and claim, the PCSSD believes that the calculations and conclusions set forth in the various exhibics are reasonably accurate. If, however, the Arkansas Department of Education desires that the PCSSD utilize updated information, the - PCSSD will be more chan willing to comply as soon as such information is furnished to it from the Arkansas Department of Education. FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI day SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN of A-U,,4 ,-r-, 1997. J My ComIT\ission Expires: .: JZ<.,-'Ulf; ;_') -~ QC k-l I --- TO before me, a notary public, this2Y NotarPublic 2 -1.,. COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE: 96TO97 WK4 I LEA i COUNTY 101,AHKANSAS 102 AHKANSAS 104 1 ARKANSAS 105 ARKANSAS 201 ASHLEY 202 ASHLE'Y 20JASHLEY 302 BAXTF.R 30:1 RAXTER 304 RAXTF.R 401 RENTON 402 RENTON 40:1 DENTON 404 BENION 405 BENTON 406 BENTON 407 BENTON 501 BOONE 502 BOONE 503 BOONE 504 BOONE 505 BOONE 506 AOONE 601 BRADLEY fi02 BRADLEY 701 CALHOUN 801 CARROLL R02 CARROLL R03 CARRO~L 901 CHICOT 'l02 CHICOT 903 CHICOT 1002 CLARK ! 1003 CLARK 1101 C:I AY I 1104 CIAY I 110fi CLAY 1701 CLEnllRNE DISTRICT OE'WITT GILLE'Tl STlllTGART HUMPHREY CROSSETT FOUNTAIN HILL HAMBURG COTTER MOUNTAIN HOME NORFORK RENTONVILLE DECATUR GENTRY GRAVETTE ROGERS SILOAM SPRINGS PEA RIDGE ALPENA BERGMAN HARRISON OMAHA VALLEY SPRINGS LEAD HILL HERMITAGE WARREN HAMPTON RERRYVILLE FIIHEKA SPRINGS /<,HErN FOREST I1irRMOTT IEIIIJORA 11 AKFSIOE AHKAl>ElPHIA c;uRDON lr.ORNING PI<;r.0TT I !CLAY COUNTY !coNr.ono AOM FOR I 1995-1996 JQ 1,278 94 287. 10 2,268 54 288 83 2,760 47 283 86 1,812 03 60640 3,845 95 500 22 5,107 53 553 15 1,147 53 1,284 30 8,656 66 2,510 38 910 51 474 74 820 99 2,894 62 385 11 863 22 404 14 607 37 1,763 43 917 27 1,562 17 1108 31 1,232 84 1,012 81 935 13 1,220 59 2,407 09 R93111 1.2:10 2R 1,001 97 736 R6 473 16 AOMFOR 1996-1997 I I NUMBER PERCENT CHANGE ' CHANGE 1st Q 1,2:12 17 285 22 2,211 .18 280 02 2,720 43 299.19 1,777 53 619 65 3,898 14 518.94 5.444 47 589 99 1,144 64 1,30560 9,375 04 2,594 68 946 35 50802 808 48 2,81554 372 62 89981 384 671 594 09 1,756 02 901 031 1,590 96 8011351 1.23996 : 1,002 761 915 21 1 1,163 43 2,442 37 I 918 351 1.248 49 1 1,039 74 I 72995, 468 )CJ (46771 (1 BR (57 36 (8 81 (4004 15 33 (34 50 13 25 52 19 18 72 33694 36 84 (2 89 21 .30 718 38 84 30 35 84 33 28 (12 51 (7908 (12 49 36 59 (19 47 (13 28 (7 41 (16 24 28 79 0 04 7 12 (1005 (19 92 (57 16 35 28 24 54 1R 21 37 77 (f, 91 (4 77 .3 66%1 -065% -2 53% -3 05% -1.45% 5.40% -1 .90% 219% 1.36% 3 74% 660% 666% -025% 166% 8 30% J 36% 3 94% 701% -152% -2 .73% -3 24% 4.24% -4 .82% -219% -042% -1 77% 164% 000% 0 58% -099% -2 13% .4 68% 1 47% 2 75% 1 48% :i 77% 0 94% -101% TOTAL 1995-1996 STATE AID S:J .041.llfi5 1 $610,743 S5.055.029 $886.831 $6,293,054 $881,650 $5,552.298 $1,830,298 S7.724.759 S1 .437 .262 $9,575,525 S1.525.271 S2, 157,190 S2, 174,171 $19,498,428 $6,005,872 S2.765,315 S1 .542.232 $2,638,593 $6,575,634 $1 ,265.575 $2,543.767 $1,202,421 $1 ,672,214 $4 ,941 ,446 $1,993,857 S4 ,223,025 $546,953 $3,611.2151 S3.272.036 S2.76R,6:l8 I $3 ,364,464 $6,019,989 $2,291 ,087 S3. 133.616 $:>, 769.~>46 s2.096. :100 $ 1,49:1 ,6761 TOT. SELECT. 1996-97 AID 12-27-96 S2.9138.74!l : S735.795I $5,6:15,639 $840,659 $7 ,015.296 $915,885 S5.309,8116 $1 ,915,093 $8,699,379 $1 ,463,375 $12,814,870 $1 ,642,592 $2,696.660 S2,716.828 $24,269.301 S7,207, 164 S3,254,057 Sl ,742,722 S2,757,022 S6,662,071 S1 .181,713 S2,931, 110 Sl.100,367 Sl ,675,076 S5,174,627 S2.077,037 S4,270,083 S850.028 $3,719.161 $3,150.098 S2,724,351 S3,413.368 S6,430,653 S2,540,432 S3.407.51l6 $:J, 117,026 $2,135,236 $1 ,532,464 ADO. BASE FUNDING $~,A .ll91 , so 1 S230.360 S2,195 S176.954 $8,954 S151 ,191 so so $32,806 so so S184,411 so so so S40,470 S75,857 S265,098 so S122,656 so S24.500 S200,713 S26,465 S173,331 I S26,6531 S157,437 $102,722 $8,631 $66,162 so $23,556 S91 ,651 S104 ,682I $65,2131 S:17 ,663 GROWTH FACILITY FUNDING so: S16,661 I' so so so so so S6,227 so so S235,001 so S37.266 S46,518 S192,472 S39,737 S55,653 S19,573 S18,502 so so S13,446 so so so S14,122 so $17,293 so so so so so so so so so $8, 1171 - COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE: 96TO97 WK4 rJ ~ FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP 1996-97 AID CHANGE CHANGE LEA COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. 101 ARKANSAS DEWITT $68.436 $15.772 S:l .131 .648 $119.71131 295% 102 ARKANSAS GILLETT $80.642 S3.468 Sfl36.566 $225.82:lj 36911% 104 ARKANSAS STlJTTGART $51.458 $5.917.457 S862.428 17 06% 105 ARKANSAS HlJMPHREY S802 so S643.6r>6 (S43.175 -4117%1 201 ASHLEY CROSSETT S94.658 S7.286.908 S993.854 J 15 79% I 202 ASHLEY FOUNTAIN HILL S1.253 S17.171 S14 .704 S957.967 S76.317 ; 866%1 203 ASHLEY HAMBURG S93.117 S77 .814 S5.632.008 S79.710J 1 44%1 302 RAXTER COTTER S48.873 S1.970.193 S139.895; 7 64% 303 RAXTER MOUNTAIN HOME S530 S60.805 S8.760.714 Sl .035.955I 13 41% 304 RAXTER NORFORK $-48,651 S36,349 S1,581 ,181 S143.9191 1001% 401 BENTON RENTONVILLE S101,882 S13,151 ,753 $3.576,2281 37 35% 402 RENTON DECATUR $20,593 $1 ,663,185 $137,9141 904% 403 BENTON GENTRY S32,257 S2.766,205 S609,015 28 23% 404 BENTON GRAVETTE S31,613 S1 ,586 S2,980,956 $806,785 37 11% 405 BENTON ROGERS S205.440 S24.667.213 S5. 168,785 26.51% 406 BENTON SILOAM SPRINGS S140,034 $7,386,935 S1,381,063 2300% 407 BENTON PEA RIDGE S64, 108 SJ,373,818 S608,503 2200% 501 BOONE ALPENA S42,062 S25,930 $1,870,757 $328,525 21 30%1 502 BOONE RERGMAN S35.430 S63.764 S2,950,595 $312,002 1162% 503 BOONE HARRISON $46,396 $6,973,565 $397,931 605% 504 BOONE OMAHA $45.434 S32,278 $1,259,425 ($6,150 -0.49% 505 BOONE VALLEY SPRINGS S12.890 S66.271 SJ. 146,375 $602,608 23.69% 506 ROONE LEAD HILL S30,805 S21,523 $1,152,695 ($49.726 -4 14% 601 ARADLEY HERMITAGE $62,907 $23,748 $1.786,231 $114,0171 682% 602 BRADLEY WARREN S32.799 S60.540 SS,466,679 $527,233 1067% 701 CALHOUN !HAMPTON $31,065 S12,271 $2,162,960 $169,103 848% 801 CARROLL IRFRRYVILLE S43.871 $79,194 $4,566.479 $343,454 813% 802 CARRO~L jrtJREKA SPRINGS S8.985 so S904,959 $356,006 6545% 803 CARROLL \<;IIEEN FOREST S37.485 S108,936 S4.023.01!l $405,604 1122% 901 CHICOT 1 nERMOTT $26,518 $85,433 S3.364.771 $92,735 2 83% I 902 CHICOT !FlJllORA S64.716 S34.381 $2,832.079 $63,441 2 29% .. I 903 CHICOT IL AKESIDE S58.856I S102,935 S3.641,321 $256,857 7 59% i 1002 CLARK IAIIKADELPHIA $25,051 SB8,711 S6,544,415 $524,426 8 71% I 1003 CLARK lc;uRDON S9,365 S53,902 $2,627,255 $336,166 1101 14 67% CLAY C:ORNING $26.772 $3,526,009 S392,393 12 52% 1104 CLAY PIGGOTT $23,729 S3.245,437 S475,891 17 18% 1106 CLAY CLAY COUNTY S12,924 I S42,447 $2,255,820 $159,520 761% 1201 CLEBURNE CONCORD S22,99ol $26,768 S1,628,002 S134,326 899% - - COMPARISON or lOTAL STATE AID l()fl!J-96 TO 1996-97 FILE. 96T097 WK4 ((') ~ ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADD. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1991 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA COUNTY DISTRICT 30 1sI a STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING 1202 CLEAUHNE l1tERER SPRINGS 1.47078 1,536 52 65 74 4 47% , S:I.0ll0 .91ill S:l .fl1'l.Dll so $27.4:18 1203 CLERIJRNE I ' Sl ,9:12.717 S:17 .564 ' S13.27'l QUITMAN 631 .81 626 82 (4 99 -079% Sl ,830.0551 1204 CLERIIRNE WESl SH)E 51809 547 .44 29 35 567% S964,458 ' S 1,233,844 so S14 ,844I 1205 CLEOURNE WILBURN 194 03 219 37 25.34 13 06% S700,645 S712,880 S31,281 sol 1301 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND 351 37 338.20 (13 17 .3 75% S919,711 S888.531 S6.660 sol 1303 CLEVELAND RISON 674 04 658.43 (15.61 -2 32% S2. 108. 141 S2.043,272 S54 .513 so 1304 CLEVELAND WOODLAWN 50698 517 64 10.66 2.10% Sl ,536.283 Sl ,794.266 S74 ,759 S21,619 1401 COLUMBIA EMERSON 407 .21 398.07 (914 -2.24% S559,099 S557.478 so so 1402 COLUMRIA MAGNOLIA 3.135 87 3,139.38 3 51 011% S7 ,495.865 S8.658.396 S276.956 so 1403 COLUMBIA MCNEIL 329.63 324.71 (4 92 -1.49% Sl .057,953 S974,465 S28.688 so 1404 COLUMAIA TAYLOR 30940 284.92 (24 .48 .7 91% S786,832 S730,722 so S10,361 1406 COLUMAIA WALDO 535 42 523 33 (12.09 -2 26% Sl,685.013 Sl .645.579 S30. 159 so 1407 COLUMBIA WALKER 244 .18 24687 269 110% S825.379 S805.851 so S2.870 1503 CONWAY NEMOVISTA 413 33 403 96 (9.37 -2 27% Sl .381,667 Sl.337.212 S45.167 SB,718 1505 CONWAY WONOERVIEW 480 38 491 04 1066 2 22% Sl.492.467 Sl ,624,610 S37 ,603 S18.617 1507 CONWAY SO CONWAYCO 2,638 42 2,663 91 2549 097% S7. 116,952 S7,493, 193 S259,518 so 1601 CRAIGHEAD BAY 617 32 649 35 32 03 519% Sl ,896,161 S2,092,589 S62,491 so 1602 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE 1,428 36 1,515 03 86 67 607% S4 .094,071 S .773,608 S184.145 S21 .463 1603 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAND 937 21 99688 5967 6 37% S2.866.614 S3.230.607 S109.517 S22.197 1605 CRAIGHEAD BUFFALO ISLAND GEN 91166 894111 (16 85 -1 85% S2.579,779 S2,610.054 S76,029 S10,644 1608 CRAIGHEAD JONESBORO 4,700 51 4,733 68 33 17 071%1 SI0,021,324 S11.322,739 S181 ,0JJ S51 .856 1611 CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON 2,076 87 2.147 OJ 70 16 J 38% $4 ,517,292 S5.271.245I S237,969 S52.102 1612 CRAIGHEAD VALLEYVIEW 1,060 47 1,11602 55 55 524% S2.835,001 S3.516.569 S187,903 S63.758 1611 CRAIGHEAl1 1 RIVERSIDE 821 92 846 54 24 62 300% S2,481,685 S2.645.855; S58.842 so 1701 CRAWFORD ALMA 2,622 32 2.64104 1 18 72 071% S8.511 ,288 S8,957,302 $340,832 S61,158 1702 CRAWFORl1 ' r.EOARVILLE 847 08 889 77 42 69 504% S3,041 ,769 $3,032,572 S46.935 sol 1703 CRAWFORD M()UNTAINOURG 789 96 829 601 39 64 ' 502% S2,677.202 $2,727,452 $44 ,8311 so 1704 CRAWFO,~D ' MIii flERRY 47:1 23 495 13 21 ool 4 63% Sl ,442.:192 Sl ,645,334 S51 .020 S12.612! 1705 CRAWF'oRD VI\N flllHFN 5.00'l 96 5.131 03 , 121 071 2 42% S14 .433.8:J6 S15,814,880 S516,736 S71.779 ; 11101 CRITTENDEN Clll\WI OROSVII IE 408 11 :160 251 (47 86 -11 7:1% $1 ,255.364 1 $949,652 $0 so ., I 1802 CRITTENDEN rllHLE 919 17 922 97 3 80 0 41% S2,940,458 $12.053 so I $2,711 ,485, 1803 CRITTENI IFN WFST MEMPHIS 5,979 29 5,958 04 (21 25 -036% $17.007.315 i $18,381,695 $542,658 so 1804 CRITTENDEN MI\HION 2,859 21 , 2,868 07 8 80 0 31% $8,166,542 S8.826.606 S270.345 S25,272 : 1805 CRITTENOEN TURRELL 462 26 465 74 J 48 0 75% Sl ,558.612 Sl ,496,608 S:18.414 S0 i 1901 !CROSS ;CROSS COUNTY 777 92 733 78 1 (44 14 -567% S2.101 . 192 Sl ,927.532 so S6.733 1 1903,CROSS ' PARKIN 563 67 549 32 (14 35 -2 55% Sl .680,802 Sl ,643,5031 S10,695 so, 1905 CROSS 1 wYNNE 2.8:19 60 2.838 84 I (0 76 -003% Sll .090.531 1 $8,8411.356 S286.813 soi 2001 jOALLAS \cARTHAGE 198 68 187 281 (11 40 -5 74% S471 .501 S457,611 so S5.234 , - - - -:r COMPARISON or TOTAL S rA TE AID 1995 96 TO 1996-97 FILE : 96T097 WK4 FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP. 1996-97 AID CHANGE CHANGE LEA COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. I 1202 iCLEBlJRNE HEBER SPRINGS $55.502, S3.902.07R 1 $821 .110, 2665% 1203 ,CLERIJRNE OlllTMAN $30,666 $7,807 $2,022.053 $191 ,998 1049% 1204 CLEAIJRNE WEST SIDE $53,804 $1 ,652 $1,304 .144 1 $339.6861 35 22% , 12051CLERIJRNE WILBURN $61 ,289 $14 ,506 $3,193 $823.149 $122,504 1 17 48%1 1301 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND $41 ,413 so S936.604 $16,8931 184% 1303 , CLEVELAN[) RISON S55,996 S59,892 $2,213.673 S 105,532 501%1 1304 \CLF.VF.LAND WOODLAWN S34 ,381 S41 ,809 Sl .966,834 S4 30,551 28 03%1 S16,9971 I 1401 COLIIMAIA EMERSON S18,618 so $576,096 3 04%1 1402 I COLI IMBIA MAGNOLIA S59.266 $8.994.6181 S 1,498. 753! 1999%1 I 1403 1COUJMRIA !MCNEIL S12,379 so Sl ,015,5321 ($4 2.421 -4 01%1 1404 ICOlllMRIA TAYLOR $22.142 S7.652 so $770,877 , ($15.955_ -2 03%1 1406 COLlJMRIA WALDO S5.626 S16,490 Sl ,697.854 S12.841 0 76% 1407 COllJMRIA WALKER S5,888 S9.895 S35,636 S860.140 S34.761 4 21%1 1~,03 CONWAY NEMOVISTA S37,715 $46,919 $1 ,475,731 S94 ,064 681% j 1505 CONWAY WONlJERVIEW S59,230 S22,379 $1.762.439 S269,972 1809% 1507 CONWAY SO CONWAYCO $26.843 S142,261 $7,921,815 $804,863 1131% 1601 CRAIGHEAD RAY S3,812 $59,807 $2,218.699 S322.538 17.01% 1602 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE S72.084 $113,321 $5.164 ,624 Sl .070.553 2615% 1603 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAN[) $13,971 , S76,951 $3,453,243 S586,629 20 46% 1605 CRAIGHEAD RUFFALO ISLAND CEN S20.736 $2,717,463 $137,684 534% 1608 CRAIGHEAD JONESBORO S86,973 $11,642,601 $1 ,621,277 1618% 1611 CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON $55,304 $5,616,620 $1 ,099,328 24 34% 1612 CRAIGHEAD VALLEY VIEW $2,477 $59,322 $3,830.029 $995.028 3510% 1613 CRAIGHEAD RIVERSIDE $39,301 $2.743,998 $262,313 1057% 1701 CRAWFORD ALMA $581 ,542 $9,940,834 $1 ,429,546 16.80% 1702 CRAWFORD CEDARVILLE $44,387 $25,9231 $54,410 $3,204 ,227 $162.458 5 34% 1703 CRAWFORO MOUNTAINBURG $58,698 : $111 ,549 $2,942.530 $265.328 991%1 1704 CRAWFO~O MllLBERRY I ' S37,307 $1 ,746.273 $303,881 21 07%, $27 ,7561 1705 CRAWf:ORD VANRUREN $445,044 $16,848,439 $2,414.603 16 73%1 I 1801 CRITTENDEN !CRAWFORDSVILLE $16,137 so $993,545 ($261,819 -2066% .. I 1802 CRITTENDEN ;FARLE I $26.092 S2.978.603 $267,118 985% I 1803 CRITTENOEN WEST MEMPHIS $161 .569 S1 9.085,9 22 $2,078,607 12 22%1 I 1804 CRITTENDEN ' MARION I I $214,276 $9.336,499 $1 ,169,957 14 :l:1%1 11105 CRITTENDEN TURRELL S60.165 $1.595, 187 $36,575 2 35%1 1901 ( ROSS I CROSS COUNTY $69,11 21 $14 .512 $2.017,889 ($83,303 .3 96%1 1903 ;CROSS f'ARKIN I $1 .654.1981 1WYNNE I so ($26,604 -158%1 1905,CROSS $174 ,205 $9,309.374 $1 ,218.843 2001 OALLAS \r:ARTIIAGE $199,509 1 $2,627 1507%1 S6fi5. IR1 $193,680 41 08% COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE 96TO97 WK4 \0 0... ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADO. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1997 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA I COUNTY DISTRICT ]Q 1st a -1 70"J STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING I 2002 [)Al I AS ' SJ .ll8J.90'l S4 .0114 .2 71 1 S1fi9.1118 so / FORDYCE 1,377 81 1.)5443 (23 311 2003 OALLAS SPARKMAN 333.65 316 16 (17 49 -5 24% S907.5361 S828.2114 so 1 so 1 2101 OESHA ARKANSAS CITY 162.72 169 29 6 57 4 04% S156.603 $118.263 sol S23.689 2102 OF.SHA DEL TA SPECIAL 305 82 286 14 (1968 -644% $812,468 $668.098 soi so 2104 DESHA DUMAS 2.126 29 2,088 59 (37.70 -1.77% $6,604 ,223 S6,528.573 $196.515 so 2105 OESHA MCGEHEE 1,459 23 1,431 .35 (27 88 -191% $4 ,232.312 S4 ,520.753 $119.703 so 2202 DREW r>REW CENTRAL 1.176 66 1,210 20 33 54 2 85% S3.579.087 S3.629,443 $47 ,591 so 2203 DRF.W MONTICELLO 2.137 57 2,128.17 (9.40 -0.44% $6,173.807 S6,707.646 S82.688 S50,857 2301 FA\JLKNER CONWAY 7,141 52 7.365 57 224 05 3.14% S18.063,372 S20,290.719 so so 2303 FAULKNER GREENBRIER 2,015 78 2,082.74 6696 3.32% S6.497 ,965 S7, 128.424 S190.242 S57.428 2304 FA\JLKNER GUY-PERKINS 271 .96 291 90 1994 7.33% S884.028 S997,906 so S12.834 2305 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER 815.11 861 .46 46.35 5.69% S2,607, 185 S2.852,496 S99,563 S22,781 2306 FAULKNER MT VERNON/ENOLA 346 72 364 99 18.27 5 27% S1 .053.849 S1.155.81J S26.152 S2.834 2307 FAULKNER VILONIA 2,024.48 2,166 28 141 .80 7 00% S6,962.519 S7.619,846 S13.976 S70,726 2401 FRANKLIN AL TIIS -OENNING 278 88 278 08 (080 -029% S687.461 S678.552 so S3,550 2402 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON 804 07 794 06 (10.01 -1 24% S2,304.242 S2.500.026 S34 .0J0 S21 ,992 2403 FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE 590 22 593 52 J JO 056% S1 ,558.842 S1 .659.994 S65,085 S16,49J 2404 FRANKLIN OZARK 1,515 45 1,561 54 46 09 J 04% SJ,913.415 S4 .400.107 S114 ,560 so 2405 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW 272.16 279 751 7 57 2 78% S793,468 $818,827 so S11 , 14J 2501 FULTON MAMMOTH SPRING 506 71 489 29 (17 42 .J 44% $1 ,697,554 Sl .563,435 $30.7591 so 2502 FULTON SALEM 767 56 754 661 (12 92 -1 68% $2,333.839 S2.348, 127 $55,2481 so 2503 FULTON VIOLA 457.36 466 45 909 199% Sl ,383,916 Sl ,416.903 S46.3271 so 2601 GARLANO CUTTER-MORNING ST 53668 563 14 26 46 4 93% S1 ,533.986 Sl,702.629 S32.7861 so ?602 GARLANO FOUNTAIN LAKE 1.108 61 1,120 11 1 11 50 1 04% S603, 141 Sl .247.271 1 soi S50,682 2fi03 GARLAND HOT SPRINGS 3.437 66 3.327 15 (110 51 -3 21% S6.688.675 S6,938,622 sol S32.216 2f>04 GARLAND 1 .IESSIEVILLE 638 69 690 39 51 70 809% S379,899 S546,451 so so 2fi05 GARLAND I AKE HAMIL TON 3.353 24 3.471 02 117 78 3 51% S9.168,774 St0.559,526 S169.892 SS0.965 2f,()6 GARLAND 11 AKESIDE 2.330 98 2.433 74 102 76 4 41% SS.0116.106 S6.510.4CM so S70.792 2607 GARLA~b I MOI /Nl AIN PINE 651 76 696 19 44 43 6 82% S 1,790.5731 S2.077,428 S73.2?5 Sl9,074 2703 GRANT ' l 'OYFN 404 03 443 101 39 07 967% Sl ,439.850 S1,599,382 so S15,036 7705 GRANT , s ,trmDAN 3,72006 3,811 27 91 21 2 45% S 10,262.59 11; S11 .807.650 S4 22.7461 S77 ,375 2801 GREENE I >ELAPLAINE 304 98 296 951 (8 OJ -2 63% S924.048 Sl.022,272 S23.952 1' S29,357 21103 GREENE \MAnMADUKE 695 90 701 9111 6 08 0 87% S2.11l 1.4117 I S2.381 ,055 s 110.2r,4 $36,728 21107 GREENE !' ;RF.ENE CTY TECHNIC 2,412 98 2.429 11 16 13 067% $7.076,230 S7,795.716 S299,907 $59.046 21106 GREENE NE ARKANSAS 2.720 46 2.781 61 1 61 15 2 25% $7 ,477,732 S7 ,813,828 S 103,726 so 2901 HEMPSTEAD RLEVINS 530 54 556 75 26 21 4 94% S 1.5118.980 Sl.728,237 so so 2903 ,HEMPSTEAD HOPE 3.143 55 3.109 78 (33 77 -1 07% S8.728.936 S9, 176.445 S309.298 so 2905 HEMPSTEAD SARATOGA 28660 266 54 1 (20 06 .7 00% Sllll5.494 S728.559 so so - - - COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE : 96TO97 WK4 ..) a.. FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP. 1996-97 AID CIIANGE CHANGE LEA 1 COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. 2002 ! OAI LAS ,FORDYCE $45.697 $8fl.909 $4 .JAfl.G!ll $504.7AA 1:100% $7 .9951 ' 2003 j OALI AS 'SPARKMAN $14 .334 $46.696 $897.30'1 ($10.227 -113% 2101 OESHA ARKANSAS CITY $58.890 $0 $200.842 $44 .239 28 25% i 2102 Dr-SHA DELTA SPECIAL $35.143 $34.341 $2.358 S739.940 ($72.52fl -8 93%1 2104 DESHA DUMAS $124.930 $6.850.018 $245.7951 3 72% 2105 OF.SHA MCGEHEE $130.606 $4.771.062 $538.750 , 12 73%1 2202 DREW DREW CENTRAL $86.641 S63, 181 S3.826,856 S247.769: 692%1 2203 OREW MONTICELLO S11 .008 S142.668 S6.994,867 S821 .060 13 30% 2]01 FAIILKNER CONWAY S392,437 S20.683. 156 S2.619.784 14 50% , 2303 FAllLKNFR GREENBRIER $14 ,039 S263.174 $7,653.307 S1 .155.342 j 11 7fl I 2304 FAULKNER GUY-PERKINS $19,746 S4 ,657 Sl ,035.143 S151 .1151 17 09 ! 2305 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER S62.713 S3,037,553 $430.368 1651% 2]06 FAULKNER MT VERNON/ENOLA $34,329 so S1 ,219.128 $165,279 1568% 2307 FAULKNER VILONIA $13,862 S330.229 $8,048.639 $1 ,086,120 1560% 2401 FRANKLIN ALTUS-DENNING S1,817 S8,328 $692,247 $4,766 069% 2402 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON S31, 136 $2,587,186 $282,944 12 28% 2403 FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE $36.925 $21,811 $1 ,800,308 $241.466 1549 2404 FRANKLIN OZARK S12.843 S89,227 $4,616,737 $703,322 17 97% 2405 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW S13.499 S19,280 $2.930 $865,679 $72,191 910 2501 FULTON MAMMOTH SPRING $17 ,500 $30.925 $18.090 $1 .660,709 ($36.845 -2 17% 2502 FULTON SALEM $57.941 $76.728 $2,538.044 $204,205 8 75% 2503 FULTON VIOLA S66.193 S14 .007 $1,543.430 $159,514 11 .53% 2601 GARLAND CUTTER MORNING ST $3,426 $35.886 $1 ,774,727 $240,741 1569% 2602 GARLAND FOlJNTAIN LAKE S2.885 so $1,300,838 $497,697 61 97% 2fi0] GARLAND HOT SPRINGS I $15.915 $6,986,753 $298,078 4 46% 7604 GARLAND I.IESSIEVILLE S43.519 so $589,970 $210,071 55 30% 2605 GARLAND LAKE HAMIL TON S32.791 S218.597 S11 ,031 ,771 $1,862,997 20 32% 2606 GARLAND LAKFSIDE S68.542 $6.649,7:18 S1 ,563,632 30 74 2607 GARLAr-:ID MOlJNT AIN PINE S36,304 S41 ,398 S2.247.429 S456,856 25 51% 2703 GRANT POYEN $73,962 S15,930 so S1.704 .310 $264,460 18 37% 2705 GRANT SHFRIOAN S109.399 S247,550I S12,664 ,720 $2,402,129 23 41 2801 GREENE IDELAPtAINE S 14.953 SfiR.756 so S1,159,290 $235,242 25 46%1 2803 GREENE 1MARMADUKE S24,987 S51 ,2221 S2,604 ,256 $422,769 1938%1 2807 GREENE ;<;REENE CTY TECHNIC $53,012 S175,666 S8,:J83.347 $1 ,307,117 11147%1 2fl0R GREFNE IN E ARKANSAS S97.750 S8,015.304 S537,572 7 19%1 2901IHEMPSTEAO ,1LEVINS $39.444 S15,468 S1,78J.149 S194.169 12 22% 2903 HEMPSTEAD IHOPE $]1 ,0131 S201 ,4fl0 S9,6R7 .2231 S958,287 10 9fl I 7905 HEMPSTEAD \SARATOGA S58.203 i S6,97R Sll24 ,7~,3 . (S60,741 -6fl6% ! - - I. COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE 96TO97 WK4 ci.. ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADO. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1997 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA COUNTY DISTRICT JQ hlQ STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING I I 2906 HrMf'SlEAO Sf'RING HILL 412 94 451 31 38 37 9 29%1 S1.J1Ul33 Sl .534.083 S 14.6201 S4 48111 3001 HOI SPRING OISMARCK 903.40 943 59 40 19 4 45% S2.703.39'l $3.045.087, S 161l.073 S19,0801 3002 HOT SPRING GLEN ROSE 961 .08 983 79 22 71 2 36% S3.043.974 S3,422.231 Sl 1,706 S43,799 3003 IIOT SPRING MAGNET COVE 677 77 723 38 45 61 6.73% S1 .644.850 S2,035.675 so S20.283 I 3004 HOT Sf'RING MALVERN 2,722 49 2,653 75 (68.74 -2 52% S7.605,392 S7 ,796.149 S255.556 3005 HOT SPRING OUACHITA 40997 381 .77 (28.20 -6 88% Sl ,267,543 S1.217.545 S17.777 $4,65so7l 3102 HOWARD ll)IERKS 60801 627.89 19.88 3.27% Sl.473.910 Sl ,719.922 S18,321 so 3104 HOWARD MINERAL SPGS 535.46 531 65 (3 81 -0.71% S 1.673.781 Sl,737,894 so sol 3105 HOWARO NASHVILLE 1,837.78 1,841 .52 3.74 0 20% S4 ,897,393 S5.335.245 S148,958 so 3106 HOWARO UMf'IRE 112 94 108 55 (4 39 -3 89% S277,089 S211 .505 so so 3201 INDEPENDEN BATESVILLE 2.282 37 2.249 88 (32 49 -1 42% S5.676.270 S6.172.829 S167,481 so 3202 INOEPENOEN CORD-CHARLOTTE 28941 292 88 3 47 1 20% S920.774 S929.268 S20.874 so 3203 INDEPENDEN CUSHMAN 36540 388 50 23 10 6 32% S1.448,487 Sl ,355.848 S3.080 S6,649 3206 INOEPENDEN NEWARK 751 43 747 74 (3 69 -049% S575.930 so S27.187 so 3209 INDEPENOEN SOUTH SIDE 1,379 42 1,363 53 (1589 -115% S5,068, 173 S4,598.882 S92, 188 so 3210 INDEPENDEN SULPHUR ROCK 282 90 295 10 12 20 4 31% S479,934 S573.817 so S7 ,882 3211 INDEPENDEN MIDLAND 673 72 683 72 1000 148% S2.448.494 S2,286.734 S64 .637 so 3301 IZARD C:AUCOROCK 503 85 513 35 9 50 1 89% S1 ,607,127 S1 ,662.308 so S18.6591 3302 IZARD MELBOURNE 545 12 538 45 (667 -1 22% Sl,525,610 Sl ,534.140 S24 ,156 so, 3303 IZARO MOUNT PLEASANT 280 41 301 65 21 24 7 57% S897,039 S923,852 S10,376 so' 3306 IZARO IZARO COl INTY 622 41 66206 3965 6 37% S1.68J,788 Sl,841 ,655 S48.567 so 3403 JACKSON NEWPORT 2,12039 2,087 41 (32 98 -1.56% S5,850,617 S5,574.888 S7 .138 sol 3404 JACKSON SWIFTON 260 45 264 05 360 1 38% S681,928 S820.616, so S11.185j 3405 /.IACKSON .IACKSON COUNTY 663 60 66064 (2 96 -0 45% Sl.714,539 S1,736,JOO S60.970 so, 3501 JEFFERSON AL THEIMER UNIFIED 724 92 715 31 (9 61 -1 33% S2,0J0,959 Sl,946.189 so