Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let small Nevada school districts use bonds for construction, sponsor says
Summary
Assembly Bill 224 would let school districts with fewer than 15,000 residents access general obligation bonds through an existing state fund to finance school construction; sponsors and White Pine County officials told the Senate Finance Committee that White Pine is the most urgent candidate under the bill's criteria.
Get email alerts on the Education Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assemblymember Erica Mosca told the Senate Finance Committee that Assembly Bill 224 would create a statewide mechanism for small, rural school districts to finance capital construction without seeking ad hoc appropriations from the Legislature.
"Assembly bill 224 is a measure that would create a statewide solution to a pervasive statewide problem," Assemblymember Erica Mosca said, describing a plan to allow districts under the 15,000-population threshold to apply to the Fund to Assist School Districts in Financing Capital Improvements using general obligation bonds rather than annual appropriation requests.
The bill responds to what sponsors called long-standing construction needs in rural Nevada. Mosca said the fund was created in 1999 and has been funded only once. She and supporters repeatedly pointed to White Pine County — where school buildings date to 1909 and 1913 — as the most urgent example: district officials told the committee they cannot raise the necessary capital locally despite raising local taxes in repeated elections.
Wayne Thorley of the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s fiscal analysis division explained the statutory process the bill would rely on, citing existing law. "Under existing law this is an NRS 387.3335," Thorley said, adding that the board of trustees of a school district may apply to the director of the Office of Finance (the GFO director) for a grant from the fund and that the director makes the determinations about eligibility.
Thorley and other witnesses told the committee that the statute lays out three eligibility criteria already in law: at least one building condemned, at least one facility unsuitable for use for certain conditions, or renovation costs that would exceed 40% of the cost of constructing a new facility. Thorley added that statute does not specify a ranking order if multiple districts apply, leaving priorities to the GFO director’s discretion.
White Pine County officials and local supporters told the committee they have done planning and local fundraising but still need state help. "We have objective engineering reports that have a whole list of deficiencies that we just simply can't remedy," Paul Johnson, chief financial officer for the White Pine County School District, said. Adam Young, superintendent of the White Pine County School District, urged support and said the district needs ADA compliance and fire suppression work among other repairs.
Trustee Terry Borgoff described operational benefits beyond replacement: energy efficiency, lower maintenance and reduced liability. Mosca said White Pine has the third-highest tax rate in Nevada at 7.725 percent behind Clark and Washoe counties and that the district’s property tax rate of $3.64 has been at the cap since 1997; she said the district plans to contribute $10,000,000 toward the project if funding is approved.
Tom Clark of the Nevada Association of School Boards testified that his association prioritized funding for rural schools during the interim and supported the bill because it provides a practical path to bond financing without establishing a new fund. Other supporters who testified included the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, Nevada Contractors Association, Nevada Mining Association, advocacy groups representing people with disabilities, trustees and parents from White Pine County, and renewable energy and local business representatives who said they support the districts as community partners.
Committee members asked how many counties and districts might qualify. Mosca responded that eight counties currently fall below the 15,000 threshold and listed Esmeralda, Eureka, Story, Lincoln, Mineral, Lander, Pershing and White Pine. Committee members and staff clarified that while other districts might meet the statutory criteria, White Pine’s buildings were highlighted repeatedly as the most dire in the near term.
The committee closed the hearing without taking a floor vote on the bill during the session transcripted here.

