Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel hears bill to incentivize countywide multi‑district school cooperation
Summary
House Bill 567 would expand multi‑district agreements and create a state‑paid incentive equal to 50% of the quality educator payment for counties where every district joins a countywide sharing agreement. Supporters said the change would help small rural districts save on local property taxes; witnesses warned the incentive likely won’t produce state costs until districts organize.
Rep. Brad Barker, sponsor of House Bill 567, told the Senate Finance and Claims Committee the bill would "expand the use of multi district agreements and provide an incentive for a 50% kicker and quality educator pay" if every school district in a county forms a countywide agreement to share resources.
Proponents framed the bill as an efficiency tool. Lance Melton of the Montana School Boards Association, speaking for a coalition of school groups, said the proposal builds on arrangements already in place and is designed to keep control and expenditures within participating districts. Melton said he expects few counties to be able to meet all participation requirements immediately and that, "for there to be any fiscal cost to this bill... you have to assume that districts across an entire county are going to quickly gather [and] put aside all of their differences." He added that, if implemented statewide and broadly, the measure could yield large local tax savings — Melton estimated a potential $25,000,000 reduction in local reliance on property taxes in an optimistic, full‑rollout scenario.
The bill ties the incentive to the state’s quality educator payment, which testimony identified as a per‑educator formula payment currently calculated in the K‑12 base aid formula (witnesses cited $3,783 as the per‑quality‑educator amount used in the testimony). Supporters said indexing the incentive to that payment makes funding predictable and keeps the state share separate from local general fund money.
Committee members pressed proponents on statutory authority and implementation. Several senators raised a technical note that claimed sharing state public school funding with other public or private entities could conflict with current law. Melton responded that HB 567 does not allow gifts and instead authorizes partnerships, citing existing statutory examples that permit districts to partner while maintaining control of their funds.
Members also pressed how the incentives would translate into local savings. Proponents described operational examples — shared food service contracts, consolidated transportation and payroll, and shared instructional programs — as the sources of savings, but repeatedly noted that countywide adoption would take time and local buy‑in.
The committee moved the bill into executive action later in the session and recorded concurrence on HB 567 by roll call, 18 yes, 4 no. The committee record indicates proponents will supply technical‑note materials to the committee clerks for follow up.
