Network Funding Projection
Projected funding from FY 2025-26 baseline through FY 2031-32, under HB25-1320 and SB26-023 — Fairplay combined campus and the Alma campus, with per-input growth assumptions and year-over-year tracking.
01 · INPUTS & PER-CAMPUS PROJECTION
Each campus shows its FY26 baseline, an editable FY27-FY32 inputs matrix, the gross-net-PPR projection with year-over-year change, and a breakdown of where the funding is coming from in any selected year. FY27 defaults to figures HRCS submitted to CSI. FY28-FY32 default to FY27 values — set separate growth rates for enrollment, at-risk, ELL, and SPED below, or edit any cell directly.
Authorizer: CSI · Accounting district: Park County RE-2 (2610) · CDE school code: 3947
The existing HRCS campus. FY26 actual and FY27 published reference come from the CSI PPR Estimates file. The FY27 hold-harmless floor binds against FY26 actual × 1.01 ($664,837.31) — currently below the phase-in amount.
Authorizer: CSI (assumed) · Accounting district: Park County RE-2 (2610) · CDE school code: tbd
Planning placeholder — no FY26 baseline, no CSI published reference. Enter the campus's projected funded pupil count and demographics below. Park County RE-2 district factors apply (same PP7, COL, locale, size as Fairplay). The FY27 hold-harmless floor is $0 (new campus with no prior-year actual).
Authorizer: CSI · Accounting district: Summit RE-1 (3000) · CDE school code: CS14
New campus launching FY27 — no FY26 baseline, no FY27 CSI published reference (since "published" estimates are for schools with FY26 history). Defaults match the CSI PPR Estimates row "HRCS Summit Expansion." Summit RE-1's district factors (PP7 $11,830 vs Park County's $12,740) and lower size/locale weights make Summit a meaningfully different funding district than Fairplay/Alma. The FY27 hold-harmless floor is $0 (no prior-year actual).
FY27 base PPR is set at $8,900.40 (the appropriated rate — a 2.4% increase over FY26's $8,692). This input controls the assumed annual growth rate for FY28 onward, compounding through FY32. Default is 2.0% as a conservative planning baseline; the actual FY26→FY27 print was 2.4%, but TABOR limits and General Fund pressure make sub-2% scenarios worth stress-testing.
02 · NETWORK ROLLUP
The network total is a sum of two independent calculations. Each campus is funded on its own demographics, district factors, and floor mechanics — the rollup just adds the results.
Seven-year trajectory · FY26 actual → FY32 projection
Gross total program — applicable amount each year, with FY26 as the prior-methodology starting point. The dotted line shows what each campus would receive at full new-formula implementation each year; the gap closes through phase-in.
03 · PLANNING IMPLICATIONS
Plain-language interpretation for school leaders, boards, and finance committees. The bill broadly favors schools serving the populations HRCS serves, but small enrollment amplifies sensitivity to count accuracy and identification practices. The sections below cover the net effect, the levers that move funding, the risks worth tracking, and where each campus stands relative to its district.
The new formula adds explicit per-pupil weights for at-risk, ELL, and SPED populations (about $2,225 per identified student in FY27, rising with base PPR inflation thereafter). For a school serving those populations, the new formula generally produces more funding than the prior 1994 formula — but the actual size of the gain depends on enrollment, demographic composition, and the district's COL factor.
The phase-in runs in 15-percentage-point increments: 30% new formula in FY27, then 45%, 60%, 75%, 90%, and 100% by FY32, so the largest year-over-year increases are still ahead under the schedule as written. The dynamic readout below reflects the inputs currently in the matrix.
FY26 → FY32 trajectory under current inputs: — Bill benefit at full implementation (FY32 new-formula PPR vs full old-formula PPR): —How to use this comparison. All three HRCS campuses are CSI-authorized, which means the Institute calculates and passes through the school-generated funding directly — there is no district intermediary retaining or reallocating dollars. The school-vs-district comparison in Section 01 isn't a CSI-passthrough advocacy tool. It is useful for two other purposes: (1) understanding the bill's relative impact — schools whose demographic profile diverges materially from the surrounding district will see funding move differently than the district average reported in CDE summaries, so a board or finance committee reviewing district-level coverage of the bill needs the school-level lens; (2) communicating mission with quantitative grounding — when telling the school's story to authorizers, funders, or new families, the demographic comparison is concrete evidence of who the school serves relative to the surrounding area.
Fairplay and Alma are accounted to Park County RE-2; Summit Expansion is accounted to Summit RE-1. Park County RE-2 has a district at-risk rate around 40.4%, an ELL rate of about 5.0%, and a SPED rate of about 15.7%. Summit RE-1 has a district at-risk rate around 37%, an ELL rate of about 17%, and a SPED rate of about 13.5%. Because both districts sit well below the 70% concentration threshold for at-risk, the new-formula concentration factor never triggers for any HRCS campus regardless of the school's own at-risk rate. The comparison that matters is the per-pupil weight stack on at-risk, ELL, and SPED counts — every identified student adds roughly $2,225/year in FY27, rising with base PPR thereafter, on top of federal IDEA, Title I, and state ELL grant funding (which the new formula does not displace).
The default demographic inputs in the matrices reflect what the schools have submitted to CSI to date. Each campus serves a meaningfully different demographic profile: Fairplay currently shows lower at-risk and ELL identification than Park County RE-2 but a SPED rate close to the district average; Alma, as a planning placeholder, starts blank and is yours to fill in; Summit Expansion as submitted shows a profile somewhat ELL-heavier than Park County but in line with Summit RE-1, with SPED close to the Summit district average. Edit any cell to test the dollar impact of higher identification rates — FRL form completion is typically the highest-yield administrative investment at a small campus.
The new-formula per-pupil weights are flat dollars — $2,225 for each at-risk, ELL, or SPED student in FY27 — but those dollars hit a much larger share of total program at a small school than at a large one.
At HRCS Fairplay's ~50-pupil FY27 plan, each ELL student is roughly 0.4% of total program. At Summit Expansion's ~50-pupil launching plan, each SPED student is roughly 0.35% of total. By contrast, a 500-pupil school sees those same single-student swings at about 0.04% of total — almost an order of magnitude smaller. Alma's effective sensitivity depends entirely on what enrollment you enter in the matrix; at the small sizes typical of a Park County mountain campus the same dynamic applies.
The practical implication: count accuracy, FRL form completion, IEP identification practices, and accurate enrollment projection submissions matter more at a small school than at a large one. Three missed FRL forms can equal $7,000 in lost annual funding.
Three levers move funding meaningfully for these campuses, in roughly this order:
Try the per-input growth-rate buttons above each campus to see how each lever propagates from FY27 through FY32 separately. A scenario with enrollment flat but at-risk growing 10%/year looks very different from one with enrollment growing and at-risk flat.
Beyond identification — retention. A funding lens makes identification visible but can mask a separate strategic question: are students from specific demographic groups staying enrolled at the school year-over-year? If at-risk, ELL, or SPED student counts are growing because of new enrollment but mobility within those groups is also high (meaning students are leaving), the funding picture looks fine while service quality for that population may be a concern. Pull mobility data by demographic subgroup as a complement to the identification-rate work that drives funding.
This tool projects funding as the legislation is written. It does not model the broader state fiscal environment, which remains constrained: TABOR revenue limits, ongoing property tax debate, and structural pressure on the General Fund all create real risk that what is appropriated and what is ultimately distributed may differ.
Mid-year rescission is a live possibility. If certain bills do not pass during the fall legislative session, the state retains the option to reduce K-12 distributions mid-year — a mechanism with recent precedent (negative budget stabilization factors). The phase-in schedule and per-pupil weights set by HB25-1320 / SB26-023 are statutory, but the dollar value of "base PPR" each year is set by annual appropriation and is the lever most likely to move under a rescission.
Practical implication for planning: the base PPR inflation assumption is in Section 01 (default 2.0%/year). This is set conservatively below the actual FY26→FY27 print of 2.4% because future-year increases are not guaranteed — appropriation depends on annual budget conditions. Adjust the input upward to model the optimistic case (~2.4–2.5%/year if recent practice holds) or downward (1.0–1.5%) to stress-test against TABOR-constrained or rescission scenarios.
Use this tool for funding-trajectory planning under HB25-1320 / SB26-023. Do not use it for cash-flow timing, budget-line-item construction, or districts where local revenue dynamics dominate. Specifically not modeled:
Statutory protections for declining enrollment. Two related mechanisms protect schools whose enrollment is falling: the legacy §22-54-103 declining-enrollment averaging (multi-year averaging that smooths the funded pupil count for old-formula calculations) and the SB26-023 §22-54-103.5 smoothing factor (L027) that begins at 45% new-formula implementation in FY28. CSI computes separate counts under both rules; this tool uses a single FPC input that feeds both formula legs. For stable-enrollment schools (both HRCS campuses) the two CSI counts converge and the tool matches CSI exactly. A school in genuine enrollment decline would see the old-formula leg projected too low here, understating the FY28-FY31 floor. The L027 smoothing-factor rates have not yet been published by CSI; this tool will need updating once they are released.
Federal and state non-formula revenue. Title I, IDEA, ELL grants, MLO override revenue, and other categorical funding sit outside this calculation. New-formula weights stack on top of those revenue streams.
January 2027 true-up. All FY27 figures are estimates until CDE certifies the October 2026 count in January 2027. Variance depends on projection accuracy: a school close to its prior-year enrollment will see small movement, while a school projecting strong growth bears more variance risk. Recalculate after certification.
Pre-enrollment SB26-023. The bill must be signed by the Governor to be effective. All FY27+ figures are estimates until enrollment.
04 · METHODOLOGY & CAVEATS
The calculation engine implements CSI's finalized FY27 charter funding methodology and the FY28-FY32 phase-in schedule set by HB25-1320, with CDE's authoritative FY28+ cost-of-living factors from the April 2026 study. At default FY27 inputs, the tool reconciles to CSI's published FY27 estimate for the existing campus ($701,867 Fairplay, within rounding) and to the CSI engine's modeled FY27 figure for the launching campus ($656,321 Summit Expansion). Alma has no CSI baseline because it has no prior-year enrollment and no submission on record — it is included as a planning placeholder you populate with your own projections.
Every figure in this tool belongs to one of four categories. Where a figure can be questioned or changed, the category tells you who can change it and what triggers an update.
Set by enrolled bill text (HB25-1320, SB26-023). Not adjustable; updates only when statute is amended.
CSI's finalized administrative implementation of statute. Authoritative for actual distributions; may diverge from a strict reading of statute (flagged where material).
Pulled directly from primary source files. Updates require new source publication (next CSI estimate release, CDE worksheet revision, October Count true-up).
User-adjustable in the tool. Defaults provided where source data exists; cells flagged where school-submitted figures are not yet available.
FY26 actuals are taken from the CSI records reflected in the canonical engine ($697,492 Fairplay; $463,515 Alma). FY26 was computed under the prior methodology, not the HB25-1320 / SB26-023 framework — it's shown here as a "where we're coming from" reference, not a comparable formula output. Year-over-year changes for FY27 are calculated against FY26 actual; the FY27 jump reflects both the new bill and enrollment growth.
Base PPR × FPC, plus at-risk / ELL / SPED at 25% of base PPR per pupil in each category, plus cost-of-living, locale, and size factors applied to the base. Concentration factor (7% of base × FRL) requires school AR > 70% in a district under 7,000 funded count with district AR > 70%. Neither HRCS campus qualifies; locale and size are zero for both HRCS districts.
FY27-FY31 funding is a blend of the prior (1994) formula and the new formula, weighted 30% / 45% / 60% / 75% / 90% to the new formula. FY32 is 100% new formula.
FY27 floor = FY26 actual × 1.01. FY28-FY31 floor = same-year prior-formula leg × 1.01 (current-year basis, does not compound). FY32 has no statutory floor. School receives the greater of phase-in or floor.
Separate annual growth rates for enrollment (FPC and headcount move together), at-risk count, ELL count, and SPED count. Rates compound from FY27 through FY32. Individual cell edits override the growth-rate result for that cell. The default growth rate is zero (flat at FY27 demographics) for each campus; this is the conservative starting assumption. Use the growth-rate fields to test what a 5-10%/year enrollment ramp at Alma or Summit Expansion would do, or what a steady FRL identification campaign at Fairplay yields over the phase-in window.
YoY $ and % change are calculated on Per-Pupil Revenue, not total program funding. This isolates formula and demographic-composition effects from raw enrollment growth — useful for strategy decisions about enrollment expansion versus serving higher-needs populations. A growing school can see total funding rise while PPR is flat (pure enrollment effect); a school with stable enrollment can see PPR rise if it serves more at-risk, ELL, or SPED students (composition effect). FY27 PPR YoY compares against FY26 actual PPR (FY26 gross ÷ FY26 FPC).