Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Bonding Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee introduces measure to raise school bonding capacity from 5% to 8%
Summary
Representative Ben Furman introduced a request (RS) to raise the school bonding capacity from 5% to 8%. The committee voted to introduce the RS for further consideration.
Representative Ben Furman introduced a request to increase the state's school bonding capacity, saying the change is limited to one line in the draft statute. "We are simply changing 1 thing on line 32 on the first page, and that is the school bonding capacity. And we're increasing that from 5% to 8%. And that's it," Representative Ben Furman said.
The measure was presented as an RS (request/statement for draft legislation). Furman told the committee the change would not alter bonding processes or interest rates and, by itself, would not raise property taxes. Representative Harris asked whether the change would allow higher financing rates or increase property taxes; Furman responded, "this will not increase property taxes. It won't increase financing rates, rates on bonds." Representative Sauter asked whether bonds would still go to local voters; Furman confirmed they would.
Representative Sotto moved to introduce "RS 32,112." The chair called for a voice vote. A member responded "Aye," and the chair announced the motion carried.
Nut graf: The committee's action was procedural: it introduced a draft measure that would raise the statutory school bonding capacity from 5% to 8% for further consideration. The motion to introduce the RS passed on a voice vote; no final enactment or vote on the substance of the change occurred at this meeting.
The proposal, as presented, was narrow in scope: Furman emphasized the RS would change a single statutory percentage and would not rework bond procedures, approval requirements or interest-rate settings. Committee members asked only clarifying questions about tax and voter approval implications; Furman said district-level voter approval would still be required for any local bond issuance. No fiscal note, enactment date or additional statutory revisions were provided during the presentation.
Ending: The RS was introduced for further processing; no committee-level amendment or final vote on the substance of the bonding-capacity change occurred at the session.
