Assemblymember Koenig presents bill to let counties levy for charter school facilities; supporters and opponents raise ownership and accountability concerns

CARSON CITY — Assembly Bill 435, introduced by Assemblymember Greg Koenig, would create a state public charter school facility fund and authorize county boards of commissioners to levy a local tax, if the county chooses, to deposit into that fund to finance charter school facilities.

Koenig told the Assembly Committee on Revenue that the bill’s purpose is to “create an opportunity for a dedicated facilities funding program for public charter schools” so those schools do not have to use per-pupil funds for rent and leases. “This will decrease the financial strain that directly impacts teacher compensation and resources for students,” he said.

The bill creates a state public charter school facility fund in the state treasury. A public charter school would apply to the State Public Charter School Authority (or a local government if it is the sponsor) to access money from the fund for qualified uses, which include paying debt for construction and maintaining facilities. The sponsor’s conceptual amendment adds local-government-sponsored charter schools as eligible recipients.

Supporters urged the committee to consider the practical facility barriers small or newly founded charter schools face. Eddie Ableser, representing Academica Nevada, said the bill would create a “tool in the toolbox” to allow charter schools to own buildings and free more per-pupil funding for classroom use. Ignacio Prado, founder of Futura Academy in East Las Vegas, said small start-up schools often lack the traditional underwriting metrics to access bonds or mortgages and that excluding leased facilities from eligibility would disadvantage smaller operators.

Local officials from Henderson and North Las Vegas testified in support, saying municipal sponsorship and cooperation could help secure facilities. Jessica Barlow Daniels of Carson Montessori described a recent experience in which a closed charter school’s building and contents reverted to the state, and she urged county participation to give parents more choice in how tax dollars support schools.

Opponents, principally the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), told the committee they feared the bill could facilitate arrangements that funnel public dollars to private firms. Alexander Marks of NSEA cited network-for-public-education reports alleging related-party transactions in some education management organizations (EMOs) and asked the committee to oppose AB 435. The union also pointed to concerns that some charter campuses have been approved in ways that harm existing district schools’ enrollment and finances.

Committee members asked detailed questions about ownership, bonding and accountability. Ableser and sponsor Koenig said the bill’s intent is to enable construction and ownership by public charter school boards so buildings would be state assets if a school closed; several proponents clarified that most current charter schools lease private properties and that the bill is meant to broaden financing options rather than mandate public payments for rent. Assemblymember Roth pressed about private management firms and whether public funding could flow to private owners; proponents said most charter boards contract for services and that contracts are voted on by public boards, and that existing law provides authorizers oversight and the ability to close failing schools.

Multiple witnesses urged the committee to consider safeguards in drafting: limits on related-party transactions, transparency and public disclosure of real-estate arrangements, and clear rules for when county levies could be used for lease payments versus construction bonds.

The committee heard pro and con testimony and then closed the hearing; no committee vote on AB 435 was recorded in the transcript. Chair Backus assigned the sponsor closing time and the bill’s floor statement would be prepared as the measure moves forward.

Why it matters

Nevada’s public charter schools currently must use per-pupil funding to cover facilities costs in many locations, a dynamic sponsors say diverts money from classroom instruction. AB 435 would give counties the option — not the mandate — of asking voters to approve a levy to finance charter-school facilities or to deposit donations and grants into the new fund. The bill raises substantive questions about public ownership, how bond payments would be secured, and how to guard against public funds flowing to private parties without sufficient oversight.

What happens next

The committee closed the hearing and assigned the floor statement to the sponsor. If the bill proceeds, committee staff and sponsors indicated they expect further drafting and possible amendments to address concerns raised about bonding terms, asset ownership and safeguards on related-party transactions.