WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HJR 1092

Joint Resolution; Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission; approving certain proposed permanent rule changes; directing distribution.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Micheal Bergstrom and 1 co-sponsor

Allows Oklahoma school districts to issue bonds for secure facilities with 60% voter approval, counting debt toward limits and imposing 25-year terms and sinking fund requirements.

Approved by Governor 05/20/2026
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HJR 1092

Summary of Bill: HJR 1092 (Oklahoma, 2026)

This joint resolution would refer a proposed constitutional amendment to voters, relating to school district bonding for secure facilities and how such debt is counted against overall indebtedness limits. The measure includes specific provisions on approval thresholds, debt limits, debt management, and submission timing.

1) Main purpose and intent

  • Allow Oklahoma school districts to issue bonds or other obligations to pay for secure facilities intended to enhance safety at schools.
  • Require a higher voter approval threshold (three-fifths, 60%) for these specific security-related bonds.
  • Establish rules for how the new debt would be counted against the district’s overall indebtedness and sinking fund requirements.
  • Limit the timing and frequency of submitting such questions to voters and set a sunset on the ability to submit by a specified date (November 4, 2019 in the text of the amendment; the 2026 status suggests a referential timeline that would be updated upon voter approval).

2) Key provisions and changes proposed

  • Constitutional amendment to Section 26 of Article X:

    • School districts could issue bonds or other obligations to fund secure facilities for personal safety.
    • Voter approval for these bonds would require a three-fifths majority in the district.
    • The debt would be counted within the district’s total indebtedness limits, but issuances could exceed the usual cap if approved (subject to overall debt constraints).
    • Bonds would have a maximum 25-year maturity.
    • Annual sinking fund millage must be levied to pay principal, interest, reserves, and other costs; the sinking fund millage must be added on top of any existing sinking fund rate.
    • New debt would be allowed only if the district’s total indebtedness remains within the specified limits (and, if already at or near the 10% threshold of net assessed valuation, the district could issue but would face restrictions on issuing further debt until reductions occur).
    • The measure would include a provision allowing districts to contract with staff or administrators beyond typical terms (one to three years beyond the current fiscal year) under the existing indebtedness framework.
    • If a county approves exemptions related to household goods or livestock from ad valorem taxes, related indebtedness limits would be adjusted accordingly.
    • A district could not submit this specific type of ballot measure more than once, and the measure would have an explicit deadline (no later than November 4, 2019) for districts to place the question on the ballot.

  • Ballot Title and voter information:

    • The measure would include a ballot title explaining that districts could issue bonds to fund secure facilities, with a 60% approval requirement and a 25-year repayment, and that such debt would be counted within total indebtedness but could be approved even if it exceeds current limits, subject to subsequent debt reductions.
    • The ballot would specify the time limit for submission and clarify that only one such vote could occur per district.

3) Who/what would be affected

  • School districts in Oklahoma (and their voters) would determine whether to authorize bonds/obligations specifically for secure facilities.
  • District-level debt calculations would be affected by inclusion of these new bonds in the total indebtedness framework.
  • Sinking fund requirements and millage rates would be affected for districts issuing such debt.
  • Overall state indebtedness framework for local governments would be influenced by these district actions, particularly the 5% baseline indebtedness limit and the potential 10% threshold under certain conditions.

4) Procedural and timeline aspects

  • The measure is a proposed constitutional amendment requiring voter approval if referred to ballots.
  • The amendment includes a built-in procedural schedule, including a deadline for submission and a requirement that the measure be presented to voters for approval or rejection.
  • Historical context in the text notes a sunset-style provision by 2019 for when districts could place the measure on ballots; practical application would depend on final legislative action and voter adoption.
  • The implementation would require standard state processes: Secretary of State referral to voters, and then, if approved, mechanics of debt issuance under the amended constitutional provisions.

Note: The document provided is a historical redraft with specific dates from 2014 embedded in the text but shows current action history in 2026. The core policy concept remains: enabling school districts to fund security facilities through bonds with a higher approval threshold and explicit debt management rules within the constitutional framework.

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

Sign in to ask a question.