Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Per Pupil And School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Bill 13‑69 would raise per‑pupil payments, alter construction thresholds and shift school construction funds
Summary
The committee reviewed House Bill 13‑69, which proposes a 22% per‑pupil increase (rates of $11,293 and $11,519), raises public‑improvement bid thresholds, eliminates a 12% cap on certain local funding, and would transfer funds from the Foundation Aid Stabilization Fund into the School Construction Revolving Loan Fund; supporters and DPI staff
House Bill 13‑69, presented in the Appropriations - Education and Environment Division, would raise the per‑pupil payment by 22% under the bill’s current language and make several related policy and construction‑funding changes.
The bill sets proposed per‑pupil rates of $11,293 in year one and $11,519 in year two, a change agency staff said would cost roughly $91.8 million based on current enrollment assumptions. Other provisions include raising the dollar threshold that triggers competitive bidding for building and public‑improvement contracts from $200,000 to $250,000, and eliminating a 12% cap on a local funding component that currently limits a school district’s use of local dollars for certain purposes.
Bill proponents also proposed transferring money from the Foundation Aid Stabilization Fund into the School Construction Revolving Loan Fund to increase low‑interest lending capacity for school building projects. Committee sponsors proposed increasing an original transfer of $75 million to $100 million to support upcoming construction needs; lawmakers noted Bank of North Dakota estimates that amount would cover likely requests for the next two years but might require revisiting thereafter.
The bill also contains a change related to boarding‑care placement for students with disabilities. A department official described returning authority for approving placements in public or private facilities to the Department of Public Instruction while other agencies continue to work on their placement processes. The official characterized the interagency placement process as “a spaghetti mess” and said the change would simplify placement decisions for families until Health and Human Services can finalize their internal processes.
Committee members discussed potential protections for districts subject to future property‑tax caps, noting any exemption language would need to be coordinated with a separate property‑tax bill. Senators largely favored increasing funding for public schools, with some members expressing support for a 3‑and‑3 per‑pupil schedule; the committee did not take a formal vote, and members asked staff for updated fiscal figures and language to protect districts that must levy 60 mills if property‑tax caps are enacted.
No formal action was recorded; the committee agreed to reconvene and to review proposed governor amendments when available.
