Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Schools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs modest increase to sparsity funding cap for isolated school districts
Summary
Lawmakers advanced Senate Bill 70 to raise the sparsity maximum for eligible rural school districts by a one‑time catch‑up that proponents say fixes a long-standing indexing oversight; the committee voted unanimously to pass the measure.
The House Committee on Appropriations voted unanimously to pass Senate Bill 70, which raises the maximum sparsity benefit available to certain geographically isolated school districts.
Sponsor Representative Jana Hunt and Dr. George Shipley, superintendent of Bison School District, told the committee the change corrects an indexing omission: the sparsity cap first set in earlier statutes was not indexed to inflation, leaving eligible districts behind. Shipley said the bill would add a one‑time increase of $27,000 to the cap—bringing the limit to $137,000 under the compromise crafted in the Senate—without creating an ongoing indexing obligation. He said that increase would not raise property taxes statewide and would cost roughly $324,000 in ongoing general funds, affecting roughly 12 districts that already sit at the current maximum.
Shipley described the unique travel and service costs for very large, low‑population districts. Bison, he said, covers roughly 1,400 square miles, with the nearest attendance center about 44 miles away, and the district expects 22 students to graduate this year. He told the committee sparsity funding covers extra operating costs such as fuel and extended bus routes and allows small towns to maintain local schools where consolidation is not practical.
Grant Judson with the Bureau of Finance and Management opposed increasing the cap, arguing the aeronautics commission and the education funding formula already provide other targeted supports and that the sparsity maximum has historically changed in past legislative sessions. He noted that 12 districts were at the current maximum and the requested change would raise the sparsity budget by about 14.4 percent.
Representative May moved the do‑pass motion and emphasized the measure’s small fiscal footprint relative to the statewide education budget and the bill’s targeted purpose. The committee approved the motion unanimously; roll call recorded nine yes votes.
If enacted, the bill would increase the sparsity cap for eligible districts by the specified amount and leave indexing unchanged. Proponents said it is a targeted adjustment to preserve access to local schools in the state’s most isolated areas.
