VAO Collaborative · Funding & district impact · FY28–FY32
← JHA reports · Funding & district impact — single consolidated view
South Conejos RE-10 & the Justice and Heritage Academy
JHA launches in FY 2027-28. Two steps, kept separate. Step 1: the district's total program each year is the greater of the phase-in formula on the combined funded count — JHA's pupils are in the count under both routes — or the hold-harmless floor. Step 2: JHA receives its own phase-in amount, computed on its own students and demographics, under both routes (SB26-023 §22-30.5-112(2)(c.5)/(c.7) district-authorized; §22-30.5-513(2)(g)/(h) CSI), and the district keeps the rest. Figures are gross — no admin retention on either side.
Revised 7/14/26 — FY28 launch, live count model. Funded counts now follow the FY28+ statute directly: SB26-023 smoothing (greater of current-year, 97% of prior year, or a 50/30/20 weighted average), one count for both formula legs (§22-54-104(7)(i)). District-charter pupils sit inside district enrollment (nothing in statute adds them separately; the certify-and-add mechanism is institute-only), so at flat district enrollment both routes produce the identical combined count, total program, and payment to JHA every year — the remaining route levers are the alternative count (open with CDE) and rural. Note the district's published FY27 count of 165.8 was a 3-year average carried by FY25's 176; that cushion ages out in FY28 and the baseline drops to ~160.8 with or without JHA. Engine calibrated to CDE's signed FY26-27 worksheet (0580); FY28+ grown at the planning inflation rate.
own-enrollment change, pupils/yr from 160.8 (FY27)
base per-pupil & old-formula growth from FY27
gross figures
CDE alternative count — CSI pupils in the old-formula 65% size relief. Affects the CSI route only; the district route already carries the relief under current law. Base case per the CSI 7/10/26 email; uncheck to model without adoption.
Rural share, district route — the district may distribute a per-pupil share of its $100K rural funding to a district-authorized JHA (~$20K/yr). Rural does not distribute to JHA under the CSI route either way. Default off.
02 · Scenario summary
The scenarios, side by side
Funded counts, the district's total program, what goes to JHA, what the district keeps, and the net against the no-JHA baseline. S1/S2 are the CSI route with and without the alternative count; S3 is district authorization. The trend, inflation, and rural inputs above apply to every column; the alternative-count checkbox selects which CSI case the detail sections below drill into.
03 · The headline
Net funding impact, per year
District retained (total program after the floor test, less JHA's payment) versus the no-JHA baseline, for the two routes under the toggle settings above.
Net impact by year
Net impact trajectory
CSI District
04 · Step 1
District total program: formula vs floor, year by year
The formula amount is the phase-in blend on the combined count, with size-factor dilution priced in. The floor is the with-JHA old formula + 1% in FY28–FY31 and nothing in FY32. The district receives the greater of the two; binding years are highlighted.
05 · Step 2
JHA's payment and what the district keeps
Both routes: JHA receives its own phase-in amount — its own at-risk, MLL, and SPED counts drive its rate — with its own hold-harmless (own old formula +1% in FY28–31, which exists from the launch year; FY32 is the full new formula). Under CSI the state withholds it from the district's equalization; under district authorization the district distributes it. Neither route passes the district's floor uplift to JHA.
06 · JHA's funding
The school's side, built up
JHA's own formula total program — identical in method under both routes; the route can shift only the district size factor it inherits (the 65% old-leg relief, and the combined count under a declining-enrollment scenario).