Bill would let small Nevada school districts use bonds for construction; White Pine highlighted

Assemblymember Erica Mosca told the Senate Finance Committee on the evening of the hearing that Assembly Bill 224 would change state policy to allow school districts with populations under 15,000 to use general obligation bonds through the existing Fund to Assist School Districts in Financing Capital Improvements rather than repeatedly asking the Legislature for one‑off appropriations.

Mosca said she brought the bill after visits to rural communities and argued the bill is a “statewide solution to a pervasive statewide problem” — namely construction costs for rural districts that lack local fiscal capacity. She noted the fund was created in 1999 and “only funded once.”

The bill’s author and supporters repeatedly cited White Pine County as the district with the most urgent need under the fund’s statutory criteria. Mosca said White Pine’s school buildings include structures built in 1909 and 1913, that the county has the third‑highest local tax rate cited during testimony (7.725) and that their property tax “has been at the cap since 1997.” Mosca and multiple witnesses said White Pine voters have repeatedly approved local tax increases and that the district plans to contribute $10,000,000 toward construction if the measure is approved.

Wayne Thorley of the LCB fiscal staff identified the statutory vehicle that currently governs the fund as NRS 387.3335 and explained the existing application process: the board of trustees applies to the director of the Office of Finance (the GFO director), who makes determinations about eligibility after consulting Department of Taxation.

Committee members asked how many districts would qualify under the 15,000 population threshold. Mosca listed eight counties that would meet that threshold: Esmeralda, Eureka, Storey, Lincoln, Mineral, Lander, Pershing and White Pine. Mosca and other supporters said the fund’s statutory criteria require that at least one building be condemned, unsuitable for use, or that renovation would cost more than 40 percent of new construction.

Supporters who testified in person or by phone included: Tom Clark of the Nevada Association of School Boards; Michael Hillerby, speaking for White Pine County School District; Mary Prusinski of the Nevada Association of School Superintendents; Donna Laffey of the Nevada Contractors Association; Kyle Davis of Ampere Energy; and several White Pine County officials and residents, including Superintendent Adam Young (on the phone), CFO Paul Johnson (on the phone), trustee Terry Borgoff and others. Testimony emphasized ADA compliance, fire suppression and safety concerns, energy and maintenance savings from new facilities, and the community’s inability to fund a full rebuild without state assistance.

Questions from committee members focused on statutory allocation processes, whether the Office of Finance must rank or prioritize multiple applications (Thorley said statute does not specify a ranking order), and whether the $100 million authorization cited in the bill was a needs estimate (Mosca said the figure represents current estimates and that districts would be expected to provide local matching funds).

No formal vote on AB224 was recorded during the hearing portion included in the transcript; the chair closed the hearing and moved on to the next item.

Mosca and supporters urged the committee to view the measure as a long‑term mechanism so small rural districts will not need to return repeatedly to the Legislature for ad hoc construction appropriations.

The committee closed the AB224 hearing and opened the next item on its agenda.