Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Brennan offers large school-construction amendment with revolving loan expansion and an 'accelerator' fund
Summary
Rep. Michael Brennan proposed an extensive amendment to LD 1892 to expand a revolving loan and renovation fund, propose $50 million per year for that fund, increase debt service for the major school construction program, and create an accelerator program to address immediate mold, roof and HVAC needs; members raised budget and timing concerns and asked for further fiscal drafting.
Representative Michael Brennan presented a substantial amendment to LD 1892 aimed at expanding how the state funds school construction and renovation.
Brennan said the amendment would increase per-district eligibility for the revolving loan and renovation fund from $2 million to $8 million and recommended setting $50 million per year for that program, funded by readjusting the state's cascade of lapse balances. He also proposed raising debt-limit service for the Major School Construction Program over several years (examples cited included increases to $188 million, $194 million, $200 million and $206 million in future years) and asked DOE and the State Board to propose a cost‑sharing formula to replace the state's current near-100% construction funding model.
Brennan described a new "accelerator" program, modeled on efforts in other states, to get immediate money to districts with mold, leaking roofs and failing heating/cooling systems — projects that do not fit the long timeline of major construction cycles. He proposed funding the accelerator from a portion of GPA lapse balances and suggested a working group to refine rules, metrics and a report-back timeline.
Committee reaction: members broadly agreed construction needs are acute but repeatedly asked where the money would come from, whether the cascade balances are available, and how the proposal would affect the next biennium's budget. Representative Hagen and others asked whether components of the amendment could be funded in the current supplemental rather than relying on the next biennium; Brennan said most changes would affect the next biennium but that some cascade language could be included in the current supplemental.
Next steps: the sponsor asked staff to re-draft and incorporate additional recommendations from the governor’s task force and other technical input. Members asked for more specific fiscal analysis, a finalized working-group membership and clearer rules for cost sharing and the accelerator’s eligibility criteria before formal committee action.
