This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: om private sources and that the public funding will go
primarily to the neediest charter schools. The law is so new that funds have yet to be
Equipment and Capital Outlay in General Fund
School districts typically spend 1 percent to 2 percent of their general operating funds on
equipment, furniture and minor renovations. A study of eight school districts in
Pennsylvania found capital projects expenditures ranged from nothing to 3.4 percent,
averaging 1.1 percent (Hartman and Keller, 1999).
Although clearly insufficient for start-up purposes, most of the resources for capital outlay
financed from general operating funds in school districts are passed on to charter schools.
In most states, capital outlay funded by general operating revenue is included in the base
revenue calculations. In addition to the facilities allowance in Washington, D.C., another
$150 per pupil, representing equipment purchases, is imbedded in the base funding
formula. North Carolina and Rhode Island also include some capital outlay spending in the
average per-pupil cost used to derive charter school funding. The tuition calculation in
Massachusetts includes school district costs for acquisition, improvement and replacement
of fixed assets (primarily equipment, furniture and minor repairs), as well as expenditures
for rent and instructional equipment, averaging about $400 per pupil. 73 Venturesome Capital: State Charter School Finance Systems Programs To Improve Access to Capital
While falling short of direct financial assistance for facilities, several states and private
entities help improve access to capital, lower the cost of borrowing or provide technical
Access to Low-cost Financing. Two states empowered existing bonding authorities to
issue tax-exempt securities on behalf of charter schools through conduit financing (Hassel,
1999; Caldwell and Arrington, 2000). The Colorado Educational and Cultural Facilities
Authority (CECFA) expanded the list of eligible beneficiaries to include organizations that
“provide an educational program pursuant to a charter from a school district.” North
Carolina expanded the mandate of the Educational Facilities Finance Agency to include
any “nonprofit institution within the State of North Carolina authorized by law and
engaged or to be engaged in the providing of kindergarten, elementary, or secondary
education, or any combination thereof.” To date, the North Carolina authority has not been
willing to actually issue any securities for charter schools.
The CECFA issues the bonds and loans the proceeds to Colorado charter schools after
charging transaction fees of $20,00 to $30,000. The bonds issued are “non-course” to
CECFA, which means that responsibility for repayment is limited to the charter school and
investors will focus on creditworthiness of the charter school rather than the CECFA. Six
charter schools have already obtained tax-exempt financing to refinance, purchase or build
facilities (Caldwell and Arrington, 2000) Together, the six schools raised over $23 million
in financing at an interest rate between 6 percent and 7 percent, cutting borrowing costs in
half compared to commercial lenders.
While no state facilities assistance is provide...
View Full Document
- Spring '09