WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 147

EDUCATION – Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding the issuance of school bonds.

68th Legislature, 1st Regular Session (2025)

The bill would raise eligible rural districts’ bonding cap to 8% of market value (minus debt) to fund high school projects, retroactive to 2025, while others stay at 2%.

Read Third Time in Full – FAILED - 29-39-2AYES – Achilles, Berch, Cannon, Cheatum, Church, Dygert, Egbert, Erickson, Fuhriman, Furniss, Galaviz, Gannon, Handy, Manwaring, Mathias, McCann, Mickelsen, Monks, Nelsen, Petzke, Pickett, Pohanka, Raybould, Raymond, Rubel, Sauter, Shirts, Weber, WheelerNAYS – Alfieri, Andrus, Barbieri, Beiswenger, Boyle, Bruce, Burgoyne, Cayler, Clow, Cornilles, Crane(12), Crane(13), Ehardt, Ehlers, Garner, Harris, Hawkins, Healey, Hill, Holtzclaw, Horman, Hostetler, Leavitt, Marmon, Mendive, Miller, Mitchell, Palmer, Price, Rasor, Scott, Shepherd, Skaug, Tanner(13), Tanner(14), Thompson, Vander Woude, Wisniewski, Mr. SpeakerAbsent – Green, RedmanFloor Sponsor - FuhrimanFiled in Office of the Chief Clerk
#bonds #education #schoolsandschooldistricts
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 147

Summary of Idaho House Bill No. 147 (2025)

Purpose and Intent

  • Addresses rising construction costs for rural and school facility needs, particularly high schools.
  • Proposes to enlarge the bonding capacity of certain rural school districts to better match actual construction costs without changing the bond passage process.
  • Declares an emergency and provides retroactive application to January 1, 2025.

Key Provisions

  • Bonding capacity increase (main change):
    • For eligible districts, the bonding limit increases from 5% to 8% of the district’s “market value for assessment purposes,” minus aggregate outstanding indebtedness.
    • All other districts would remain limited to 2% of market value, minus aggregate outstanding indebtedness.
  • Eligibility (who may benefit):
    • An elementary school district with at least six teachers, or a district operating both elementary and secondary schools, or bonds issued for acquisition of a secondary school, may issue bonds up to the 8% cap (where applicable).
    • Other districts are limited to a 2% cap.
  • Definitions relevant to bonds:
    • “Market value for assessment purposes” = the last preceding equalized assessment within the district on the tax rolls.
    • “Aggregate outstanding indebtedness” = total unredeemed bonds minus bond funds and tax funds set aside for redemption, with exceptions for taxes already collected for interest.
    • “Issue/issuance” = formal delivery of bonds and payment to the district.
  • Election process unchanged:
    • Bond elections continue to follow the existing procedures, including board authority to place the question before electors and the electorate voting requirements (as dictated by the constitution and state law).
  • Effective date:
    • Emergency provision states the act is in full force on and after passage and retroactively to January 1, 2025.

Who Would Be Affected

  • Primarily rural and semi-rural Idaho school districts that qualify under the 8% cap (per the criteria in subsection (3)).
  • Districts undertaking high school construction or replacement projects, or those pursuing secondary school acquisitions.
  • Municipalities and county assessors timing the market value for assessment purposes and the calculation of aggregate outstanding indebtedness.

Procedural and Timeline Details

  • Introduced: February 5, 2025
  • Committee Action: Reported out with Do Pass; placed on second reading; third reading scheduled (calendar actions noted).
  • Floor Action: Read Third Time in Full and FAILED on February 20, 2025 (vote 29 ayes, 39 nays; 2 absent).
  • Status: Read Third Time in Full – FAILED; Floor sponsor Fuhriman; filed in the Office of the Chief Clerk.

Fiscal Impact

  • Fiscal Note states there is no net change in state or local revenue or expenditures.
  • The bill’s proponents argue it enables districts to align bond capacity with construction needs without altering the bond-passage process.

Practical Implications

  • If enacted, rural districts meeting the criteria could undertake larger bond issuances (up to 8% of assessed market value, subject to indebtedness already issued) to finance high school construction or related facilities.
  • Other districts would remain constrained to 2% of market value.
  • The retroactive effective date could potentially affect issuances or planning already underway in early 2025 if later enacted.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.