Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House amends and passes bill raising school district construction threshold to $60,000
Summary
Lawmakers amended a committee increase and passed House Bill 70 to raise the dollar threshold districts may spend in-house on construction without bidding; the House adopted an amendment lowering the committee’s $80,000 figure to $60,000 before passage and referred the bill to the Senate.
House members voted Jan. 26 to pass House Bill 70, which revises the dollar threshold that allows school districts to authorize construction work using district staffing without a public bid. The sponsor explained the change updates a 1978 threshold of $30,000 and the committee had amended the bill to set the level at $80,000.
Representative Peterson said he had investigated indexing the threshold but concluded there was “not a reliable index to link it to,” and that the committee figure was acceptable. On the floor, Representative Short moved to amend the committee figure from $80,000 down to $60,000. Short argued the $60,000 figure is a “fair amount as a compromise” that would allow smaller contractors to compete while limiting the shift of too much work to district staff.
Opponents cautioned about safety, oversight and potential budget impacts. Representative Osterholm said lowering the threshold transfers work to district staff and could reduce funds available for education, arguing “60 is very, very low and I don't think it's appropriate.” Supporters of the amendment countered that local districts often rely on volunteer or in-house staff, and that a lower threshold helps keep smaller contractors competitive.
The Short amendment passed on the floor. Representative Hammond urged members to vote in favor of the bill “as amended,” and the clerk announced the bill passed on a recorded vote. The bill, as amended to a $60,000 threshold, was referred to the Senate for further consideration.
Members debated indexing and consistency across districts; proponents said indexing options were unreliable and that the amendment reflected current market realities.
