Bills / H.B. 332 / Transcript

H.B. 332 School District Project Financing Amendments: transcript

Everything said about this bill in committee and on the floor, speaker by speaker. Each time links to that moment in the official video. Back to the bill: summary and every vote →

Transcribed from the Legislature's recordings by software, with speakers identified from the video; it can contain errors. Check the recording before quoting anyone.

House Political Subdivisions Committee, Feb 13, 2026

Committee chair49:17
We'll go to item number two on the agenda house bill 3 32. Local building authority amendments. Representative ox here. Representative. Welcome.
Rep. Tiara Auxier49:28
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you guys. Um, I wanna talk about a problem that I'm sure you guys have all heard about, by the way, I'm speaking to the second sub, so check that out first. 'cause it's quite different than the original bill, which I forgot to make public.
Committee chair49:46
Um, but, um, it only, so you're speaking to the second substitute I'm talking to?
Rep. Tiara Auxier49:50
Yeah, I'm speaking to the second sub, and it's only regarding school districts. And so maybe this will sound familiar to you, but there was a school district in my area that put a bond on a ballot for a new school that was $140 million. And I live in a pretty rural area. Um, this bond would increase people's taxes by like $700 a year. And that bond was voted down, and then they put on the ballot again the next year, the same bond. Um, and when that failed again the next year, then they decided to get a lease revenue bond and still, um, fund this Taj Mahal School, as we're starting to call them, is, um, you know, are, is it excessive of what they wanna build versus what they actually need. And so, um, I have a lot of constituents who've reached out and said, what, what can we do about this? It's, it is clear that our elected representatives are not listening to us. We voted down this bond twice. They haven't come back and tried to renegotiate and try to find, um, cost savings in different places. And so, um, I've, I've kind of pivoted my bill away from, it was originally just gonna say, you can't get a lease revenue bond if, if something's failed at the ballot. But now it's saying, um, prioritize doing a geo bond first because that's the least, um, expensive interest rate you could get. And then also saying that, um, you cannot do public private financing, which is the P three financing. And so I'm not aware of any school that is actually doing P three financing at the moment, but I thought it would be a good way to protect against maybe that shift over, um, to pub public private, um, financing when school districts can't get their way. And, um, I think especially because those businesses are for profit and do we want, um, you know, financing from them when they can't convince their own voters. I would rather have them go back to their communities and look for different cost savings. I think I've had a few conversations with some of you who, um, and, and Representative Christofferson behind me had a really great idea, but it, this, that bill, uh, the bill failed, but, you know, having a library of designs to choose from that would be, you know, more cost effective. I know Jordan School District does that. I Uintah a Jordan school district school growing up, and I remember going and competing at another school that looked exactly the same as mine. So anyway, I just think that the way that we are incentivizing the high cost of schools, not only from the way that we pay architects, 10% of the cost of, of, um, the project, but also, um, not really having to find cost savings the same way a private person has to. I, I think there should be something to kind of reign that in. And, and this is something that I've been thinking out might be a way to do that. So with that, I'm open to questions.
Committee chair53:07
Thank you, representative. Er let's go to the committee for clarifying questions. Representative Peterson.
Rep. Peterson53:19
Thank you. And I'm just reading your, your sub, so, um, thanks for letting us know it was there. Um, so I mean, the bulk of it feels like lines one 12 through one 17 about you may not issue the lease revenue bond to pay for construction reconstruction or remodeling unless you first try to do a general obligation bond, right. Um, to pay for construction reconstruction remodeling. So my question is, um, when you do a geo bond, uh, um, they're often long terms, right? Um, sometimes the lease bonds are shorter terms, um, as far as like timeframes. Um, so I guess are we taking away the opportunity for them to say, in this instance it's just a remodel, we're just fixing a few things at this school. Do we need to do a general obligation bond and put it to the voters? If it's a remodel and it's a smaller scale project, like how, how do you, are you saying yes? Yeah, you,
Rep. Tiara Auxier54:16
I, I'd be open to, to looking at that language and seeing something that would work better. Um, my question is, can geo bonds not be for a shorter time period? They, I don't know. That's What I, so maybe that's something to look into, but I'm, I'm not particularly firm on how that needs to look. I'm talking about the massive expense that goes onto the voters, um, and, and making sure that they feel like they are having some interaction from the people that represent them. Because yes, they can be voted out of office, but that might be two years after they've already approved a project that you can't go back on now. So what is a, a way that we can have actual dialogue of, Hey, we need a school. Do we need this crazy thing that feels like a community center rather than a school? You know, the learning is gonna be the same whether it takes place in building A or building B. Um, so do we need to let an architect live out all of its creative dreams with public money? And I would say no to that. So Right. That's where I'm would be on that. And
Rep. Peterson55:18
Then, and then I guess my second question is, um, sometimes I think it's, it's good to just let elected officials be accountable for the decisions that they made, right? And, um, and sometimes I think as a state we want to say, well, we're not gonna let you make those decisions because we might not agree with them. And, and I wonder the more and more that we do that how often we're actually, um, making people in our communities care less about who's on their school board. Um, and I don't think that's good. I want people in my community to care who's on their school board. And the more and more we take away their decision making and we say, you know, we're just gonna say you can't do this, rather than saying, sure, you can do it, but if you go against your voters, you might not get elected on the school board. Um, any thoughts about that? 'cause because I do think that, like, if, if that happened in your community, I I sure the heck hope that you guys recruited some good folks for this school board and, you know, elected different people. So any thoughts about that?
Rep. Tiara Auxier56:18
Yeah, I think my thoughts about that would be, I, I agree and if it's on a, an issue that you don't agree with them on that in two years, you can change your mind. That's something different. But when you're taking out a bond that's gonna be repaid for decades and you're building a school for 80 year quality, like that is not something that's easily recalled and easily remedied by just voting in someone different in two years. So I would say in this particular instance, um, I, I would like the voters to be able to have more of a say and more of a dialogue of, Hey, you know, we've already rejected this bond once. Come back and like present a new plan. Do something that's reasonable.
Rep. Peterson57:01
Thank you. Those are my questions.
Committee chair57:02
Thank you Representative Peterson. Representative Miller.
Rep. Miller57:07
Thank you. So when I, um, served on the school board, we had, um, we needed a new elementary school and we had enough, um, capital for half of it, but wanted to do lease revenue bond for the other half of the elementary school. So under this, um, bill, would we have had to have gone to the voters, like in all five cities to get a general obligation bond for half of an elementary school.
Rep. Tiara Auxier57:32
You know, maybe, maybe we need to talk about like a graduation of, of amounts of like, when that would be, um, necessary or not, you know, it, it would maybe go along with the remodel that, um, Representative Peterson was bringing up. And so, um, I'm open to looking at, okay, maybe over this amount, because that's obviously a new huge commitment rather than just, you know, finding the funds from somewhere else. So totally open to, to changing language around and, and doing that. I know that a couple years ago we had a similar situation and there was a cap put on on how much you could bond for a new school, but that was obviously for a massive big school that wouldn't really apply to, you know, a 300 million school is never gonna go in, in a small district like mine. But, you know, per capita maybe that should be looked at. And so I'd be happy to look at those numbers and kind of reconfigure maybe a calculation or something.
Committee chair58:31
Thank you. Representative Miller, Representative Ward.
Rep. Raymond P. Ward58:34
Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so there are school buildings are some of the more common buildings that as a government, a government builds out in its community. Maybe the most familiar one. But our other local governments do build other kinds of buildings sometimes. I mean, in Davis County right now they're trying to figure out some way to get a new courthouse. There. Is, is this kind of a restriction something that you would equally place say on the county?
Rep. Tiara Auxier59:01
No, I wouldn't.
Rep. Raymond P. Ward59:02
And, and, and then what's the difference in your mind, why would this restriction be appropriate to put on a school board versus put not putting it on the county? I think
Rep. Tiara Auxier59:10
That's a really fair question. Um, I would say like some would be for public safety. And I wouldn't necessarily think that public safety is a massive thing we're looking at for school buildings. If we're looking at expanding their tracks and adding swimming pools and doing, you know, extravagant things to a school building is very different than needing to build a jail.
Rep. Raymond P. Ward59:30
Okay. So the reason you'd placed this restriction is just that you feel that the school, the schools in general have been built inappropriately, luxuriously,
Rep. Tiara Auxier59:38
And I, and I would also say right now we can't referendum a school district tax increase where we can with cities and counties. And so there is that option for the public to be able to express their dissatisfaction and make cities and counties come back to the table that is not available with school districts right now.
Rep. Raymond P. Ward59:58
And is that the, the same answer? 'cause on this other part about the public, public private partnership, there's a bunch of different settings. The state has done several things for transportation where it has found it advantageous to make that kind of a partnership. What is the benefit that comes from?
Rep. Tiara Auxier1:00:12
It's, it's the same thing. There's no protection for the taxpayers to be able to referendum that or anything else. So in, in the school system, if, if you want to fight against instant tax increase, that's, that's very different. And so, um, I could also say I don't necessarily agree with public-private partnerships in general. So, um, whether or not the state wants to do that or any other cities as that's up to them, but I don't necessarily like that set up anyway.
Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:00:40
Okay. So as much as you could, you would limit it and in this case you'd limit the schools from being able to do it.
Rep. Tiara Auxier1:00:44
I'm not talking anything about cities or counties right now. Yes. My opinion about that, yeah. Alright. But I'm just focused solely on school districts very right Now. Thank you.
Committee chair1:00:52
Thank you. Representative Ward. Representative Arthur.
Rep. John Arthur1:00:55
Thank you chair. Um, as I'm going over the second sub, I'm just thinking about some of the school districts we've heard of who are experiencing rapid, rapid growth right now. Um, if you limited their ability to seek these lease revenue bonds as well as public private partnerships, and yet they have this challenge of trying to build a a school year, do you feel like there is enough flexibility with this law in place for them to keep up with their, their, their needs in terms of the, you know, putting the number of students that they have into functioning buildings?
Rep. Tiara Auxier1:01:28
There's nothing in this bill that restricts them from being able to do lease revenue bonds? It just says that if you want to try to get a bond, go through the geo bond process first before you go to a lease revenue bond just because of the interest rate. But yes. Um, as far as the public-private partnership, as far as I know, no school district has ever tried to do this. And so this is just kind of a preemptive thing, but I've never heard an argument of why a school district would actually want it.
Rep. John Arthur1:01:54
Alright. Do you mind if I just ask a a follow up chair. Um, do you know roughly how long, uh, a geo bond process takes from start to finish?
Rep. Tiara Auxier1:02:04
Um, I would imagine it would be different and Right. You know, but if you wanna put it on the ballot, I would imagine you have to be doing that right seven, eight months ahead of time.
Rep. John Arthur1:02:14
Yeah. So if you're trying to build a, a school each year to, to meet the needs of your community, having to wait that long before you can even pursue a lease revenue bond, um, feels like it might be overly prescriptive, but
Rep. Tiara Auxier1:02:28
I would think that with the way we're planning with schools anyway, that you're looking out and, um, projecting what you need. So I don't think that this would make any difference as far as whether or not they do a geo bond or when they do a lease revenue bond.
Committee chair1:02:44
Thank you. Representative Peterson.
Rep. Peterson1:02:46
Sorry, I thought of another question while ahead while I was sitting here. Go ahead. Um, so we just passed on the house floor Rick's ship's bill on, on referendum. Yes, we did. And, um, so at this, I mean, if this bill passes the Senate, um, you could referendum at least one,
Rep. Tiara Auxier1:03:02
You could. Uh,
Rep. Peterson1:03:03
so if that was the case, do you still feel like you would need this?
Rep. Tiara Auxier1:03:07
Yes. And the reason why is we can see Representative Shipp is bringing this bill because there is a problem that there is no way to referendum school districts right now if they do a lease revenue bond, which if this passed, yes, it would let them referendum that. But then are we then opening up this other public private partnership avenue that we would then be having the same problem with? Okay. So it is just trying to encircle everything within the same thing and let the voters have, have a little bit of save when they're being taxed. Thank
Committee chair1:03:41
You. If that's All. Thank you Representative Kohler. Thank
Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:03:44
You. There you go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, in reference to this bill, just my experience with it, I've only been here six cycles, six years, and each time the biggest complaint I get from my constituents is property tax. And most of that's related to school. Wasatch County has 65, or excuse me, 75% goes to the schools. This is something I think would curtail a little bit. Wasatch County did what you're talking about. Uh, a bond failed, uh, on a couple of buildings. And I've been in public office enough to know that sometimes there's an emergency where you gotta do something and you can't just not do it. But when these huge projects like this come on, they are so directly related to what our property tax and the, the fight that people have to keep those paid. I think this is a, a border we ought to put on it. And, uh, that's my opinion. Thanks.
Rep. Tiara Auxier1:04:33
Thank you. I appreciate that. And I think a, a really important thing of why property taxes are such an issue is because of the home and affordability issue. And if we're single-handedly being able to just put out, um, a lease revenue bond that's increasing people's taxes by $700, that $700 could make a difference between whether or not they can buy their house or not, um, when it's extra taxes that they weren't planning on. So thanks for bringing that up.
Committee chair1:05:02
Thank you Representative Kohler. Okay, no further questions. Let's go to the public. How many would like to speak to this? Raise your hand please. We have 1, 2, 3. Okay. Let's have our first witness come forward please. In fact, have, uh, two of you can come up please and sign the paper and introduce yourselves.
John Larsen, Jordan School District1:05:29
Good afternoon chair. Appreciate this opportunity. My name is John Larson. I'm the business administrator at Jordan School District. I'm here to speak against this bill. The second substitute, uh, pub uh, public finance people know that there are times when voting on debt for a Go Bond is the best financial tool to keep taxes low. And there are times when a local building authority debt is the best tool to keep taxes low. This bill would remove a vital tool from our publicly elected officials tool belt, simply due to the fact, um, that they have not, uh, done this long process for a a, a general obligation bond for situations that have been mentioned, uh, by other committee members. Um, circumstances change, uh, time changes, things, projects change, and so, uh, local boards need to be able to have access to tools to meet those needs. Jordan School District's Board of Education has used both tools in the past and every time they deliberated over what was the best tool for the taxpayer. And they chose that, uh, a carpenter should not be told to use a hammer when they, uh, know that a screwdriver is actually the better tool. Um, one clarification. Before you can do a lease revenue bond, you have to do public hearings. There is a whole process for that as well. Please remember that if you use a local building authority to borrow money, you are not required to raise taxes to do the project. But if you use a general obligation bond method, you are required to raise taxes to do the project. Every local building authority project Jordan School District has done, we never raised taxes to do the project. The board deliberated, we cut our spending or we received grants from the state and federal government 'cause of the dire situation we were in. In order to have that project happen, local officials are more tax conscious than, um, than we may give them credit for. If this is good public policy to not have, um, that everything must go to a vote of the people, then why are other entities not included? Why is it just school district? If it's good public policy, I'd ask you, please don't punish the taxpayers across the entire state for isolated situations that occur in the state. By passing this bill, you'll be forcing locally elected officials to raise taxes unnecessarily. And I ask you, please vote no on this bill. Thank you.
Committee chair1:08:19
Thank you, sir. I have a question for you. Yeah. So, are the Go Bonds a lower interest rate than the lease revenue?
John Larsen, Jordan School District1:08:27
Yes. My experience is Go Bonds generally have a lower interest rate about 2025 basis points 0.2 0.25 interest rates.
Committee chair1:08:37
Okay. So why wouldn't you always go to the lowest interest rate?
John Larsen, Jordan School District1:08:40
Great question chair. Uh, because, uh, a local building authority lease revenue bond allows you more flexibility on other aspects of the bond for the, the project. You can, for example, negotiate terms for early prepayment, general obligation bonds to do that. You'll be punished in the markets heavily on your interest rate to do that. Generally speaking, as was alluded to earlier, general obligation bonds have a longer term to them, whereas a lease revenue bond, you can shorten the term, which is also better for the taxpayer in the long run. But it comes at a price with a little bit of a interest rate premium to be paid.
Committee chair1:09:23
So, but you've used lease revenue? Yes, we have. So you think that interest offset is, does not overvalue the other terms of the lease, either a prepayment or a shorter term. Sometimes you value that more than an interest rate than a lower interest rate?
John Larsen, Jordan School District1:09:42
Yes, in particularly, in particular, we valued the prepayment opportunities. We were able to negotiate in getting a lease revenue bond through our local building authority, that that allowed the, the board great flexibility as we progress, uh, through payments through the year, through the years.
Committee chair1:10:03
And I don't know if you can answer this, but in general, what's the process, the time period for a Go bond versus a revenue bond?
John Larsen, Jordan School District1:10:10
Uh, a geo bond is certainly longer. My experience is at least a year for a geo bond to be done correctly. You can, um, shorten that timeframe very much, but then you're not seeking, uh, much, you're not deliberating all the options. Usually, uh, my experience is a, a lease revenue bond. Local building authority bond is used when there's something that needs to happen quickly or for smaller projects, as has been alluded to.
Committee chair1:10:41
Do you have a any thoughts on the private public-private partnership prohibition?
John Larsen, Jordan School District1:10:46
Uh, my school district has not done the, the three p private public partnership. Uh, before, however, one of our lease revenue bonds, we did partner with the state and the federal government to build a school that needed to be billed rapidly. And, uh, but part of that deal was we had to issue lease revenue bonds, uh, to do that part. Part of that deal though, for the federal government was a fantastic interest rate on those bonds, which was, uh, much, much lower than we ever would've had on a Go Bond.
Committee chair1:11:23
Okay. Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Go ahead Mr. Horsley.
Ben Horsley, Granite School District1:11:27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is, uh, Ben Horsman, the Superintendent of Granite School District. I just wanna tell a brief story. Um, on March 18th, 2020, uh, some of you remember that year and maybe even remember that date 'cause it's seven o'clock that morning. There was a 5.87 earthquake that rattled, uh, the entire Salt Lake Valley. Um, granite School District had, uh, several schools that were damaged as a result of that, uh, earthquake, including Westlake Junior High and West Valley. That was completely damaged and uninhabitable, uh, for the next three years. Uh, we used a lease revenue bond to be able to put that project back on the map until we could get full funding back from our insurance and, um, um, from FEMA reimbursement. And if we had not been able to do that, uh, we might still be in the process of rebuilding that school because we had already passed a geo bond in 2017 and outlined a list of projects. And there are other requirements associated with the, those projects, um, that would've required, um, uh, other stipulations within state law that would've prevented us from being able to go that avenue and that route. So as a result, we now have a beautiful new school, uh, paid for with our insurance and our dollars, but was subsidized in the interim through the lease revenue bond situation. If I had to go through our last, uh, geo bond process, which was in 2017, because we took a full year to educate the public on the process and then a full year, uh, to actually run the, the campaign, um, we wanna make sure that we're educating the public appropriately with respect to how their taxpayer dollars are going to be used and the impacts on those. I wanna remind the committee, um, that LRPs, um, do not require a tax increase. The one that we, uh, utilized for Westlake Junior High for that three year interim period, um, uh, saved taxpayers a tremendous amount of money. And again, uh, we were able to pay it off much sooner and without having to go through this strenuous process of a, a regular geo bond process. So again, uh, back to your question though, I, I think there is a present value of money conversation that we're constantly having as we look at our four year strategic plan for replacing the oldest buildings in the state of Utah. But this doesn't just impact the school district, like Granite School District, I can think of some of our high growth areas, um, especially in southern Utah County, um, and in Davis County that would be impacted by this. If there was an emergency situation, a large development that came in a surge of students, we wouldn't have the ability to go through a geo bond process to initiate a project that was much desperately needed. I wanted to point out that the primary costs, uh, for our facilities in Granite School District, which are roughly half the cost, the average cost of DFC M'S projects here in the state of Utah, we're trying to be very fiscally prudent in terms of how we're utilizing taxpayer dollars. The primary cost is the security requirements as mandated by HB 84 in the state of Utah. So, uh, we're not trying to build Taj Mahals, we're trying to build secure facilities that are specialized just as much as a police department and many other government and municipal facilities. And so we do expend a little bit more to make sure that the state requirements are met for our student safety, because that is our primary concern. Last but not least, um, we do have accountability through our process. I want to say that I appreciate represented ER's concerns. I share them. Um, we took two years on our geo bond process because we wanted the public, uh, to have the opportunity to let us know the direction they wanted to take and that they were in favor of raising their taxes to improve the oldest school buildings in the state. And so, uh, we definitely would not want to be utilizing the LRB process, um, without it being a benefit or a help to our taxpayers or to our students. And as such, I would ask the committee to oppose the bill.
Committee chair1:15:21
Thank you for your comments. Go ahead ma'am.
Lexi Cunningham, Utah School Superintendents Association1:15:24
Um, thank you Mr. Chair. Lexi Cunningham. I'm representing the Utah School Superintendents Association, the Utah School Boards Association, and the Utah Association of School Business, um, officials. We just finished our, our weekly meeting and this bill was on our agenda. After, um, a lengthy conversation and hearing from many of our members, our members voted to not support this bill. School board members and superintendents around the state. Um, they invest a lot of time when it comes to designing and bringing new buildings forward. Their first thought is to make sure that we provide students with a safe, welcoming place where they can, can learn. This would limit their ability to, to do that. So we respectfully ask that you, um, vote no against this bill. Thank you.
Committee chair1:16:11
Thank you. And be sure to sign in. Anyone else from the public. Okay. We'll close the public comment period and come back to the Committee for consideration. Representative Teuscher.
Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:16:24
Thank you Mr. Chair. I move, uh, that we adopt the second substitute.
Committee chair1:16:28
The motion is to adopt second substitute of house bill four 20. Would you like to speak to it?
Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:16:33
I'll waive, Uh, to the committee.
Committee chair1:16:37
Motion is to adopt second substitute four 20. Any discussion? 3 3 2 3 2 3 32. Oh, I, I'm sorry, I said the wrong one. It's 3 32. First thank you. Representative board HB 3 32. First sub seeing none. Representative box here. Waive Representative Teuscher I'll waive. The motion is to adopt first sub house bill. Three second. Okay, the motion is to adopt second sub house bill 3 32. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Say no. Motion carries unanimously. Representative Teuscher.
Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:17:20
Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to hold house Bill 3 32 second substitute. That's in order. We'd like to speak to your motion. I would, and I appreciate, uh, the discussion that we've had, uh, the great work, um, from Representative Ox here in bringing this issue forward. I do believe that there is an issue here. Um, I think that when, uh, an issue goes out to voters that voters reject and then it comes back to a school board and they find some way to do the exact same thing, uh, using a different finance tool, that there's a problem there. And, um, I I appreciate the comments from Representative Peterson of saying, well, maybe that's just an electoral consequence, you know, that you get voters upset and they can just kick you out. But I, I think you make a good point to say these are long term decisions that are being made that that community is going to have to suffer with for a very long time. And so we wanna make sure that there are the proper guardrails in place that they can't make decisions that are really out of line with, with where the people want to be. That being said, um, I, I don't think that the bill as we see it today is, is the right answer. I I don't even think it's even close to the right answer to be right now. I think we need to put a lot more thought and careful consideration and nuance into how that's being crafted, uh, to be able to get to a solution that works. And you mentioned, um, Senator Brammer bill that had had passed through that maybe is too high of a limit to really address the issues that you have. I think in, in some ways this is the exact opposite. Um, we're trying to solve a problem that, that maybe this would work in a very small school district, um, like you might see in Morgan County or Summit County, but doesn't work at all in a, a school district like Jordan or Granite as we heard today. Um, I, I really want to commend my school district. And you, you kind of mentioned it. I mean, they, they're really leading out on the cutting edge to finding ways to cut. And they were in this situation where they went out for a general obligation bond. Uh, the voters voted against it and they didn't do what you've seen in some of these other areas. Or maybe the Representative Kohler had seen where they just tried to go around what the voters want and do the same thing anyway. Um, they really tightened their belt. They came in, sharpened their pencils, tried to find a way, uh, to relieve the concern that the bond needed, but not do it by just finding another funding source and doing the exact same thing. They were able to find cuts, I think up to 17% cuts in, in the way that they were designing the schools and move forward. And I think the voters in my area were really appreciative of the good work of the school board. So how do we set up a framework that encourages schools to take the good actions like we see in Jordan School District? I, I don't know what the answer is, but I do think that it's worthy of consideration, uh, in the interim. And I hope that you consider doing that. I, I think I, I would make a motion that, you know, we maybe add this to, to a interim study, um, bill, however, I think as you've kind of narrowed it down to schools, it might make more sense to be in the education committee, which you sit on anyway. So that might be a better interim committee for this. But, uh, if not, I think, uh, this would be something worthy of us studying to, that's my thought.
Committee chair1:20:23
Thank you. Representative Teuscher Rep Sandbox here to the motion to hold.
Rep. Tiara Auxier1:20:27
I'd be supportive of that. I think, you know, there is a lot of nuance to different places. I would say though, that this has happened in many places across the state. And you're right, it sounds like Georgia School District has some really great ideas on how to keep, um, costs down. And I like the idea of maybe expanding it to even, you know, how do we look at funding, um, new schools and is there a way, you know, we, we can, you know, maybe give them a certain amount of plans that they can choose from rather than doing custom schools all over the state. 'cause we all know custom houses cost a lot more than, um, ones that you just have five plans to choose from. So I'm open to looking at other ones. This is, you know, I think has been a really good conversation and I'm happy to keep having it. So I'm just, you know, I'm here representing my voters and this is something that has been a big problem and wanted me to address. And I think that it sounds like it's been in other places too. So I'm happy to, to keep working on it.
Committee chair1:21:27
Thank you. Representative box here. Discussion to the motion to hold Representative Kohler.
Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:21:31
Thank you. And I'll support the motion since the sponsor does, it seems to me the momentum here and having worked again in local government, it used to be that the geo bond was the, the standard. If you didn't get it, you didn't do it most of the time, you got enough support that it went through. But it seems to me in the last 10, two or three years at least, that it's almost become a second na nature to use the, the, the other way because it's easier. They can just raise their taxes. You don't have, yeah, they have hearings, but they're, most of the people's perception when they go to those, they haven't listened to me on the vote. So why would they listen now? And I, I think we've gotta do something in the mechanics to change that impression so that it's more difficult maybe, or at least the, the process, uh, gets more involved or brings more people into the system. So I'll support the motion.
Committee chair1:22:20
Thank you. And so my comment is, I can understand your frustration. I think I would be frustrated, you know, and I can't speak to if that school's needed or not. 'cause I don't know your area that well. But what I've heard from, from some who go through this and do it is that sometimes other financing mechanisms like lease revenue can be done without raising taxes. It, it perhaps can be done quicker and maybe it can be done with some savings put in it. And I'm just reluctant to take the, the tools away. 'cause that's a challenge when we do it statewide, we're taking these tools away and we're assuming everybody's maybe a bad actor, which they're not.
Committee chair1:23:02
Uh, so I appreciate the motion to hold Representative Walter.
Rep. R. Neil Walter1:23:09
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't gonna say anything, but I felt like maybe I should. Um, in a number of different contexts, I've been very, very vocal about my concerns about the cost of school facilities. Um, I think, uh, frankly, one of the most exceptional ones is a lease as a general obligation bond that was passed for the Salt Lake School District for $700 million for two high schools, $300 million a piece. Um, and the voters supported that. That was their prerogative. I I think that that's an un it's just a wild amount of money for, uh, for the, for, uh, those two high schools. But I think about this. So I think about this thought all about this problem a lot, um, for a number of years. This isn't a, this is something that, um, is not just a problem in public education. It's, we've talked a lot about it in higher education, a higher education facilities. And so there's a lot of problems here. But I just wanna point out, I think for the committee's, um, uh, information that while, while I'm very concerned about this particular problem, the financial tool itself isn't the problem. Um, I'll give you one simple example. This bill is not about charter schools, it's about school districts. But charter schools are exclusively funded, by the way, charter schools have the lowest cost per square foot. They're the most efficient facilities. They don't have the length of life, the life length that many of our, uh, district facilities have. And they might not have the amenities, particularly in a high school context, the athletic amenities and all those other costs that are added, but they're the lowest cost and they're all financed either through, um, revenue bonds or through private public partnerships. And so I don't think the tool itself is the problem. I do think there's a problem and I think we should work on it. I'm in favor of the motion to hold. Thank you.
Committee chair1:25:01
Thank you, representative alter representative taser for summation on your motion, I'll waive summation is waived. The motion is to hold second sub house bill 3 32 local building authority amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, er, for bringing this issue to us.