House education committee approves introduction of bill to create Public Education Facilities Grant Fund

The House Committee on Education voted on Jan. 28 to introduce RS 32040, a bill that would repeal an older loan-and-grant program and establish a new Public Education Facilities Fund to provide need‑based grants to school districts for construction, remodeling and emergency repairs.

Representative Rod Furness, co-sponsor of RS 32040, told the committee the bill would help districts facing urgent facility problems such as failed boilers, collapsing walls or other safety issues. "This bill would help them do that," he said, citing an elementary school in Salmon that he described as "tipping somewhat" and noting the district passed a roughly $20 million bond but remained about $3 million short of the cost of a new elementary school.

The bill would repeal a prior statutory program that Furness said authorized $25 million more than a decade ago and has been largely unused. RS 32040 would transfer that $25 million into the new fund and would permit the State Board of Education's office to award grants based on demonstrated financial need and project documentation, including design plans, bids and three years of district budgets. Furness said the fund is explicitly limited to core educational facilities and "No funds will be used for athletic events."

Representative Sony Galaviz, also a sponsor, framed the measure as targeted to rural districts that lack the bonding capacity to finance new schools. "A basic elementary school is about $30,000,000. Their bonding capacity is $10,000,000," she said, using North Gem as an example and saying the grant program would help bridge the gap between what districts can bond for and the cost of needed construction or deferred maintenance.

Galaviz and Furness said the bill also proposes transferring roughly half of the balance currently in the Public School Health Insurance Participation Fund (about $57 million in total in that fund, according to testimony) into the new grant fund to create a significant opening balance and to allow future general‑fund or other appropriations.

Committee members asked for details that sponsors said they would provide at the public hearing. Representative Clow asked whether there would be grant caps and whether large projects could deplete the fund in the first year; he also asked whether a maintenance levy should be a condition of eligibility.

Representative Nelson requested a background email showing district taxable value differences to illustrate how bond payments vary by district. Representative Harris asked whether the bill would permit ongoing transfers from the general fund, whether the health insurance fund was meant for other purposes, and how grant priority would relate to districts that already have bonds. Representative Hawkins asked why the older fund had been underused; Galaviz and Furness said that prior applications were onerous and that only one district (Plummer‑Worley) had used the earlier program.

Representative Tanner and others asked the sponsors to provide an itemized spreadsheet of district needs compiled under the facility assessment requirement from the 05/21 distribution; Galaviz said the State Department of Education has assessments and that the sponsors would submit a district‑by‑district breakdown of need for the record.

Representative Sauter moved to introduce RS 32040 for hearing. The committee conducted a voice vote; the chair voted aye and the motion carried. No roll‑call tally was recorded in the transcript.

The sponsors said detailed eligibility criteria in the draft bill include a requirement that districts demonstrate financial need, provide project plans and bids, show prior bond activity and indicate whether a facility is unsafe or unhealthy. The office of the State Board of Education would prioritize districts "with the greatest need," monitor grant use and require repayment in limited situations where a district received excess funds.

Sponsors and committee members asked that the definition of "rural" be reviewed before a public hearing to avoid excluding consolidated districts that otherwise serve rural populations. The bill as discussed would prefer rural applicants but committee members asked for a clearer operational definition.

Next steps: RS 32040 was printed for hearing; sponsors said they would return with additional materials requested by committee members, including: an itemized district needs spreadsheet derived from existing facility assessments, proposed grant caps or priority rules, clarity on potential uses of transferred health insurance fund balances, and suggested definitions for "rural school" and any maintenance‑levy eligibility requirements.

Ending: Committee members said they looked forward to the public hearing for RS 32040 and to the additional data the sponsors promised to submit.