Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to incentivize countywide multi-district cooperation draws detailed committee questions about cost and logistics
Summary
House Bill 567 would add incentives for counties to form multi-district agreements covering nine shared services; proponents estimated a possible $25 million near-term cost if uptake were statewide and emphasized voluntary participation. Committee members pressed witnesses on procurement, delivery logistics in rural areas, cross-county participation, and special education implications.
Representative Brad Barker opened the hearing on House Bill 567, which would revise Montana's multi-district agreement statute to add incentives for counties in which every school district participates. The measure lists nine functions that can be jointly provided and offers a potential incentive of a 50% increase in the quality educator pay formula for participating districts; Representative Barker emphasized the voluntary nature of participation and that local school boards would retain control.
Lance Melton of the Montana School Boards Association testified in detail about the law's history, practical examples and fiscal implications. Melton said the bill's full statewide uptake would likely cost about $25 million immediately and referenced approximately $516 million in direct state aid as the broader pool of funds that could be committed in shared arrangements. Melton and other proponents said substantial collaboration would be required and that uptake would likely be gradual.
Committee members asked practical questions about procurement and delivery for food services in geographically distributed counties, how cross-county cooperatives would function, and whether special education cooperatives would be permitted or complicated by the proposal. Witnesses explained that volume purchasing typically lowers per-unit costs, that cross-county agreements are possible under the bill, and that special education cooperation is already authorized under existing law.
Next steps: the bill remains in committee after the hearing; proponents and committee staff did not supply a binding statewide fiscal model during the hearing, but indicated implementation details and fiscal notes would be available for further review.
