Network Funding Projection
Last updated June 15, 2026 — reflects CDE’s new clarification around the “< 459” at-risk provision.
Projected funding from the FY 2025-26 baseline through FY 2031-32, under HB25-1320 and SB26-023 — four CSI-authorized campuses across four accounting districts (Poudre R-1, School District 27J, Mesa County Valley 51, and Douglas County RE 1), with per-input growth assumptions and year-over-year tracking.
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.
Authorizer: CSI · Accounting district: Poudre R-1 (1550) · CDE school code: 1005
Lowest-need profile relative to its district (at-risk 15.4% vs Poudre 31.2%). Flagged floor-funded at the state floor rate in the old formula, the same treatment as AAK in Poudre — an open confirmation item. At full implementation the new formula lands below the old-formula counterfactual, so hold-harmless is the binding floor through FY31.
READING · NORTHERN COLORADO
Accounted to Poudre R-1 (PP7 $10,707, COL rising 0.181→0.197). FY27 published total is $8,256,258 on 730.46 FPC (+9.8% over FY26’s 665). At-risk identification is 15.4%, roughly half Poudre’s 31.2%; ELL is 0% and SPED 4.2%. FPC sits about 9% below headcount (730 vs 806), consistent with a part-time / homeschool-enrichment cohort.
Below the 46.75% state threshold, so old-formula at-risk is the flat 12% base — no concentration band. New-formula concentration never applies (Poudre’s funded count is far above 7,000). The “< 459” provision is irrelevant here (730 FPC).
This is the one campus where the fully-phased new formula lands below the old-formula counterfactual — about $135K lower at FY32 (~$8.98M new vs ~$9.12M old). Hold-harmless is therefore the binding floor through FY31, and the campus steps down slightly into FY32 when the floor falls away. Separately, the engine flags Northern Colorado as floor-funded at the state floor rate in Poudre, the same treatment confirmed for AAK — confirm whether that override applies here.
Authorizer: CSI · Accounting district: School District 27J (0040) · CDE school code: 2904
FY27 FPC of 445 is a +24.6% growth projection — the most enrollment-sensitive figure in the system. FPC is below 459, but the campus is below the 46.75% at-risk threshold, so the < 459 provision changes nothing here.
READING · NORTHERN DENVER
Accounted to School District 27J (PP7 $10,947, COL rising 0.212→0.219). FY27 published total is $5,041,035 on 445 FPC. At-risk is 17.1% versus 27J’s 50.4%; ELL 3.0%, SPED 4.3%. FPC runs about 10% below headcount (445 vs 492).
The FY27 FPC of 445 is a +24.6% projection over FY26’s 357 — the most aggressive in the system. Because total program scales directly with FPC, this is the softest published figure of the four; a miss reads straight through to the rollup. Use the enrollment growth control to stress-test it.
FPC of 445 is below 459, so the “< 459” provision would normally remove the old-formula concentration bump — but at 17.1% the campus is already below the 46.75% threshold and on the flat 12% base regardless. Net: the < 459 update changes nothing here. At FY32 the fully-phased new formula lands modestly above the old-formula counterfactual (about +$72K).
Authorizer: CSI · Accounting district: Mesa County Valley 51 (2000) · CDE school code: 2905
The only campus above the 46.75% state at-risk threshold (57.3%), so its old-formula at-risk uses the two-band concentration calc. FPC of 530 is at or above 459, so it keeps that treatment under the < 459 provision.
READING · GRAND JUNCTION
Accounted to Mesa County Valley 51 (PP7 $10,364, the lowest of the four; COL rising 0.103→0.111). FY27 published total is $6,006,598 on 530 FPC (+3.2%). At 57.3% at-risk it is the only campus above its district (Mesa 51 at 48.2%) and the only one above the 46.75% state threshold. SPED is 12.1%, ELL 1.9%. FPC essentially equals headcount.
Above the 46.75% threshold with FPC at or above 459, so its old-formula at-risk uses the two-band concentration calc: the portion up to 46.75% of FPC at 12%, the portion above at a sliding rate. This is the campus that draws the most from at-risk weighting. The school-vs-district question matters most here — the bands use the school’s 57.3%, not Mesa 51’s 48.2%; the model applies the school-level (per-charter) treatment CSI confirmed with the < 459 update.
At FY32 the fully-phased new formula lands above the old-formula counterfactual by roughly $101K — the clearest positive of the four, driven by the 25% weights on its large at-risk count plus rising COL.
Authorizer: CSI · Accounting district: Douglas County RE 1 (0900) · CDE school code: 0079
Largest campus and lowest at-risk share (11.7%). Douglas County RE 1 shares the same PP7 as Denver County 1, but the demographic profile is very different.
READING · DOUGLAS COUNTY
Accounted to Douglas County RE 1 (PP7 $11,205, the highest of the four; COL rising 0.223→0.230). FY27 published total is $11,166,095 on 978 FPC (+5.0%) — the largest campus in the system. At-risk is 11.7% (lowest), below Douglas’s already-low 15.2%; ELL 3.0%, SPED 4.0%. FPC sits about 10% below headcount (978 vs 1,090), the largest part-time gap in the system.
Below the 46.75% threshold, so old-formula at-risk is the flat 12% base; new-formula concentration never applies. Note Douglas County RE 1 shares the same PP7 ($11,205.09) as Denver County 1, even though the demographic profiles differ sharply.
At FY32 the fully-phased new formula is roughly neutral to slightly positive versus the old-formula counterfactual (about +$14K) — the high PP7 and COL offset the low at-risk weighting. The campus rides hold-harmless through the phase-in like the others.
02 · NETWORK TOTAL
The system total is a sum of four independent calculations. Each campus is funded on its own demographics, its own accounting district’s factors, and its own floor mechanics — and the four districts differ materially in per-pupil base, cost-of-living, and at-risk rate. The rollup just adds the results. Per-campus PPR is shown separately, not averaged, because a pupil in each district generates different dollars.
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 the system would receive at full new-formula implementation each year; the gap closes through phase-in.
Each campus side by side for the selected year, using the inputs currently in the matrices above. Demographic percentages are count over headcount; per-pupil revenue is gross applicable total ÷ FPC, so it folds in each campus’s demographics, its district’s factors, and the phase-in. The highest value in each row is marked in green, the lowest in rust.
03 · PLANNING IMPLICATIONS
Plain-language interpretation for school leaders, boards, and finance committees. ACACS runs four campuses across four accounting districts under one authorizer (CSI). Three of the four serve at-risk, ELL, and SPED populations well below their districts’ averages; Grand Junction is the exception. The blocks below cover the net effect, the four-district mechanics, how the at-risk provisions land, the levers that move funding, and the risks worth tracking. Figures are presented as modeled scenario numbers, not recommendations.
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). Because three of ACACS’s four campuses identify these students at rates below their districts, the weight uplift is modest, and effective per-pupil revenue clusters around $11.3–$11.4K across all four campuses despite very different demographics. Grand Junction, the one campus above its district’s at-risk rate, draws the most from the new weighting.
The phase-in runs in 15-point increments: 30% new formula in FY27, then 45%, 60%, 75%, 90%, and 100% by FY32. Every campus leans on the hold-harmless floor during the FY28–FY31 window, so the FY32 step — when the floor falls away and the full new-formula level applies — is where each campus’s underlying position shows. The dynamic readout below reflects the inputs currently in the matrices.
FY26 → FY32 trajectory under current inputs: — New vs. old formula at full implementation (FY32 new-formula PPR vs full old-formula PPR): —All four campuses are CSI-authorized, so CSI retains 3% across the system — there is no district-retention variation here. What differs is the accounting district behind each campus: Poudre R-1 (Northern Colorado), School District 27J (Northern Denver), Mesa County Valley 51 (Grand Junction), and Douglas County RE 1 (Douglas County). Each carries its own per-pupil base, cost-of-living factor, and at-risk rate, and each campus is calculated against its own district.
Cost-of-living rises in the FY28+ study for all four districts (Poudre 0.181→0.197, 27J 0.212→0.219, Mesa 51 0.103→0.111, Douglas 0.223→0.230), so the new formula’s COL component grows for every ACACS campus. Note that Douglas County RE 1 and Denver County 1 share the same PP7 ($11,205.09) in the CDE calculation, even though their demographics differ sharply.
The school-vs-district comparison on each campus card shows each campus against its own district — concrete evidence of who each campus serves and how its weighting compares.
Two at-risk mechanics matter here, and neither moves the four published FY27 totals.
New-formula concentration (7% of base PPR per at-risk pupil) requires the district’s funded count under 7,000, the district at-risk rate above 70%, and the school’s own at-risk rate above 70%. All four ACACS districts have funded counts far above 7,000 (Poudre ~30,500; 27J ~24,500; Mesa 51 ~19,800; Douglas ~61,000), so the new-formula concentration factor never triggers for any campus.
Old-formula at-risk uses the school’s own at-risk rate. Grand Junction is the only campus above the 46.75% state threshold (57.3%), so its old-formula at-risk uses the two-band concentration calc; the other three sit on the flat 12% base. The “< 459” provision (CSI’s 6/11 update) removes the old-formula concentration bump for campuses under 459 funded pupils — it touches only Northern Denver (445 FPC), but that campus is already below the 46.75% threshold, so it was on the base rate regardless. Net: the < 459 update changes none of the four ACACS totals.
On the open school-vs-district question: this model computes the at-risk threshold test and the concentration bands at the school level (the school’s own at-risk rate and its own FPC), which is the per-charter application CSI confirmed alongside the 6/11–6/12 < 459 update. That settles it for these numbers. The only residual is if CDE’s final guidance moved the at-risk factor to the district level — that would shrink Grand Junction’s old-formula band (school 57.3% vs Mesa 51’s 48.2%); it would not change the other three. Low-probability watch item, not the headline.
Three levers move funding meaningfully, in roughly this order:
Try the per-input growth-rate buttons above each campus to see how each lever propagates from FY27 through FY32.
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. 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), set conservatively below the FY26→FY27 print of 2.4%. Adjust upward to model the optimistic case (~2.4–2.5%/year) 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 or budget-line-item construction. Specifically not modeled:
Statutory protections for declining enrollment. The legacy §22-54-103 declining-enrollment averaging and the SB26-023 §22-54-103.5 smoothing factor (L027, beginning FY28) are not modeled — this tool uses a single FPC input feeding both formula legs. The L027 smoothing-factor rates have not yet been published.
Federal and state non-formula revenue. Title I, IDEA, ELL grants, mill levy override revenue, and other categorical funding sit outside this calculation. New-formula weights stack on top of those revenue streams.
October 2026 true-up and bill enactment. All FY27 figures are estimates until CDE certifies the October 2026 count, and SB26-023 must be signed to be effective.
04 · METHODOLOGY
Every figure on this page is computed live in the browser from the inputs in the matrices, using the dual-formula transition in HB25-1320 / SB26-023. There are no stored totals. The mechanics below are identical across the portfolio; only the data differs.
Base PPR of $8,900.40 in FY27, growing at the inflation rate set in Section 01 (default 2.0%/year). Per pupil: base × FPC, plus a 25% weight on base PPR for each at-risk (FRL), ELL, and SPED student, plus a cost-of-living add of base × FPC × the district COL factor (FY27 study for FY27; FY28+ rebased study thereafter), plus any district locale and size factors (all zero for the ACACS districts).
The new-formula at-risk concentration factor (7% of base PPR per at-risk pupil) applies only when the district funded count is below 7,000 and the district at-risk rate exceeds 70% and the school’s at-risk rate exceeds 70%. None of the four ACACS districts meets the funded-count condition, so this factor is zero system-wide.
District PP7 × FPC, inflated each projection year, plus an ELL add of 8% of PP7 per ELL student, plus at-risk. At-risk has two paths. If the school’s at-risk rate is below the 46.75% state threshold or its FPC is below 459, at-risk is funded at the flat 12% base (12% × PP7 × at-risk count). Otherwise it uses the two-band concentration calc: the portion up to 46.75% of FPC at 12%, and the portion above at 12% + 0.3 × (school at-risk rate − 46.75%), capped at 30%. Among ACACS campuses, only Grand Junction (57.3% at-risk, FPC 530) takes the two-band path. The result is floored at the state minimum old-formula rate ($11,302.82 × FPC, inflated).
Each year blends the two: the applicable amount is the old-formula amount plus the phase-in percentage of the gap to the new-formula amount when new exceeds old (30% in FY27, then 45%, 60%, 75%, 90%, 100% by FY32). A hold-harmless floor protects each campus through FY31 — the greater of the phase-in amount or, in FY27, the FY26 actual × 1.01, and in FY28–FY31 the same-year old-formula × 1.01. FY32 has no floor; it pays the full new-formula amount. Net to the school is the applicable amount less 3% CSI administrative retention.
Campus FY26 actuals, FY27 enrollment, and demographic counts: CSI PPR Estimates FY27 (Dave Sever, June 11, 2026 release, including the < 459 provision). District factors (PP7, COL, at-risk, ELL, SPED, locale, size): CDE FY2627 District Funding Calculation Worksheet (SB26-023, 5/13/26). All FY27 totals reconcile to CSI’s published estimates to the dollar at default inputs.
