Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee hears plan to reallocate $25 million for one-time school security grants
Summary
Lawmakers and witnesses debated a bill to reassign $25 million to one-time school security grants (up to $500,000 each) for physical ‘hardening’ and cybersecurity; members raised equity and oversight questions before laying the bill over for omnibus inclusion.
A House Education Finance subcommittee on Thursday heard testimony on House File 3492, a bill that would appropriate $25 million in one-time state funds to expand eligibility for an existing school safety and cybersecurity grant program.
The bill’s author, Representative Duran, told the committee the measure would make those grants available to school districts, charter schools, cooperative units, tribal contract schools and nonpublic schools so they can make one-time security upgrades. “This is an opportunity for us to do what we can for school safety and offering an opportunity for us to expand on this,” Duran said.
Nonpartisan staff told members the bill would appropriate $25,000,000 from the general fund with an offsetting reduction of $25,000,000 from the Northern Lights Express appropriation; individual grants would be capped at $500,000 and awarded through the Minnesota Department of Education. Tim Strom, House Research, summarized the fiscal mechanics and program administration for members.
Witnesses including Jeremy Olson, a superintendent, and Casey Ryerson, a nonpublic-school principal, urged the committee to use one-time funds for “hardening” work—glass film, locked entry reconfigurations and door hardware—that require capital expenses. “These are one-time expenditures,” Olson said, describing work such as door-security retrofits and redesigning entryways.
Several members praised the proposal’s intent but pressed for equity and clear application priorities. Representative Bernig and others warned that competitive grants can disadvantage smaller districts without grant writers; Representative Vernegg asked whether cooperative units that do not serve students directly would be eligible, and staff confirmed the statutory definition could include those cooperatives but that the commissioner would review eligibility.
Opponents did not dominate testimony at this hearing, but members repeatedly asked whether the proposal’s focus on clause 7 of the safe‑schools list—physical security enhancements—would exclude investments in mental-health supports, counseling or other noncapital interventions. Representative Yoo Hakim and others urged the author to consider broader options in future work.
The committee laid the bill over with the chair’s intent to include it in a future omnibus bill.
Next steps: HF 3492 was laid over for further work and inclusion in an omnibus package; no final appropriation or award decisions were made at this meeting.
