Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education School Facilities Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House panel advances bill to convert $50.5 million into revolving fund for rural school facility repairs; grants capped at $5 million
Summary
House Bill 338 would convert about $50.5 million of existing school facility and bond-equalization balances into a revolving grant program to assist districts—particularly rural ones—with urgent facility repairs and renovations.
Representative Doug Pickett introduced House Bill 338, a bill to repurpose existing school facility funds into a public school facilities cooperative funding program aimed at addressing urgent safety and renovation needs, with priority for smaller and rural districts.
Pickett said HB 338 builds on earlier legislation and on a program that has existed but was little used. He told the committee the bill would combine the remaining bond-levy equalization balance with the dormant school facilities fund for a total of about $50,500,000 in available funds. Under the proposal, the fund would operate as a revolving grant program and would be managed by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction rather than the State Board of Education.
Representative Monroe Furness (presenting as Furness) outlined mechanics: the fund targets projects tied to hazardous conditions or safety issues and can be used for repair or renovation, including to finish projects where a district's bond was insufficient. Applications would be reviewed by a panel under the superintendent; the maximum award to a district would be $5,000,000. Furness explained that awards “may be repaid, not has to be repaid,” and repayment would be amortized over 20 years at a treasury-based interest rate, using the legacy bond-equalization formula to calculate a lower district share when applicable. He added that once the 20-year amortization period expires the award could be forgiven and become a grant.
Funding mechanics and priorities were discussed. Furness said the bill relies on existing revenue streams and the bond-equalization waterfall (referenced as the 2.92 stream) to prioritize existing bond repayments; under the bill, the district’s 2.92 income stream would continue to go toward any existing bond first. Furness said the panel would set application priorities and that the fund’s structure is meant to favor rural districts that lack bonding capacity.
Representative Sonia Galaviz described why the measure responds to data produced after House Bill 521 required statewide building assessments. She cited the state’s facility-condition index and said dozens of districts have immediate replacement or repair needs. Testimony from Brianne Green of Salmon illustrated the needs on the ground: Green said Salmon passed a $20 million bond after 13 failed attempts over 20 years, has extensive community in-kind contributions and is still $2.5–3 million short; she said HB 338 “will be an additional loan for our residents to pay back” but that Salmon would likely use it as a bridge loan to finish construction.
Representative Ehart moved that HB 338 be sent to the floor with a “do pass” recommendation; the motion carried and the committee advanced the bill to the floor.
Key program details recorded in committee: the fund would use $50.5 million of previously appropriated funds; awards capped at $5 million per district; applications considered by a panel under the State Superintendent; repayment optional depending on district circumstances, amortized over 20 years with interest based on the state treasury rate; funds repaid to the account would replenish the program.
