Overview
Title
To provide Federal-local community partnership construction funding to local educational agencies eligible to receive payments under the Impact Aid program.
ELI5 AI
S. 1275 aims to help schools that have less money because they're near big, tax-free lands like army bases by giving them money to fix buildings and make new ones. It wants to make sure the schools are safe and nice for kids and teachers by sharing money from the government and the communities.
Summary AI
S. 1275, titled the “Impact Aid Infrastructure Partnership Act,” seeks to enhance construction funding for schools serving federally impacted local educational agencies, such as those with large areas of non-taxable federal land or in rural areas. The bill intends to provide a combination of federal and local funding through competitive and formula grants to address urgent facilities needs, focusing on health and safety improvements, modernization, and teacher housing. It authorizes $250 million annually for four years, designating funds for both competitive and formula grants based on facility conditions and local matching capabilities. Additionally, the bill outlines the authorized use of funds, requires annual reporting on the grant program, and sets eligibility criteria for applying local educational agencies.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill titled "Impact Aid Infrastructure Partnership Act" proposes a federal-local collaboration aimed at providing construction funding to local educational agencies that are eligible for payments under the Impact Aid program. This program typically supports schools that lose property tax revenue due to nearby federal properties or have increased burdens from serving military and Native American communities. Specifically, the Act seeks to address infrastructure needs by offering both competitive and formula grants to improve school facilities. The legislation includes provisions for $250 million in annual funding over four years, prioritizing schools with significant building deficiencies, technological needs, and issues related to teacher housing in specific federal lands.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the primary issues with this bill is the lack of clarity in the criteria for defining and allocating the "learning opportunity threshold total percentage." This is crucial because it determines how funding is applied and could result in inequities, particularly disadvantaging less affluent areas. Another point of concern is the substantial budget proposed for teacher housing on Indian Treaty and Federal trust lands, which lacks a detailed plan, raising questions about efficient fund usage.
The criteria for grant awards are broad and may lead to a large number of eligible agencies, potentially diluting the impact of the funding. Additionally, there are complexities and potential ambiguities in several sections. For instance, the compliance requirements relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act and other standards are not clearly defined, which might lead to inconsistent application and possible legal issues. Moreover, the process for handling unspent funds lacks specification, potentially leading to inefficiencies.
Impact on the Public Broadly
If effectively implemented, this bill could lead to significant improvements in the infrastructure of schools located on or near federal properties, ultimately leading to better educational environments for students. For the general public, this translates to a potential upswing in educational outcomes, which can have downstream benefits for local communities by fostering better-educated citizens who can contribute economically and socially.
However, without clear guidelines and oversight, there is a risk that the funds could be unevenly distributed or mismanaged, which might not solve the infrastructure problems the bill aims to address. Moreover, gaps in the clarification of key terms and processes could lead to misunderstanding and inefficient application of the allocated resources.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Federally Impacted Local Educational Agencies: Schools that serve military bases, Indian reservations, or other federal lands are the primary beneficiaries. The bill seeks to mitigate the lack of property tax revenue that these schools suffer from by improving facilities which may enhance educational outcomes. However, less affluent agencies might be disadvantaged due to unclear funding criteria.
Federal Government and Regulatory Bodies: The Secretary of Education is charged with significant discretion under this Act, which might lead to a need for strong oversight mechanisms to ensure proper administration and allocation of funds.
Teachers and Students: Improved school infrastructure could create a safer and more conducive environment for learning and teaching. Specifically, addressing faculty housing issues might help with teacher retention in remote areas. However, if the implementation is not carried out effectively, these potential benefits may not be fully realized.
Taxpayers: As this initiative involves significant federal investment, the effective use of tax dollars is a concern. Without transparent processes and clear evaluation criteria, there could be skepticism about whether the funds are being utilized judiciously.
Overall, the "Impact Aid Infrastructure Partnership Act" has the potential to make positive changes in educational infrastructure but faces challenges related to clarity, fairness, and effective resource allocation that need to be addressed for successful implementation.
Financial Assessment
The bill titled the "Impact Aid Infrastructure Partnership Act" aims to provide financial support to enhance the infrastructure of schools serving federally impacted local educational agencies. Specifically, the bill authorizes annual appropriations of $250 million for four years to fund both competitive and formula grants. These grants are intended to address urgent facility needs such as health and safety improvements, modernization, and teacher housing.
Financial Allocations
Funding Authorization: The legislation authorizes $250 million each year for a four-year period, starting the fiscal year after the enactment of this Act. The allocated funds are divided into 75% for competitive grants and 25% for formula grants. This distribution reflects a significant investment in educational infrastructure, particularly for schools unable to secure funding through traditional means like issuing bonds.
Competitive Grants (Section 4): The competitive grants are determined by a facility condition priority listing. The legislation outlines criteria that range from emergency safety conditions to technology infrastructure needs. This section makes explicit that schools facing immediate structural or safety hazards are prioritized for financial aid, indicating a direct connection between the severity of need and financial assistance.
Formula Grants (Section 5): These grants are awarded based on a calculated number of “weighted student units,” but the language is complex. This complexity, as identified in the issues, might lead to challenges in understanding how funds are distributed, potentially resulting in misinterpretation of who qualifies for funding.
Issues Related to Financial Allocations
Learning Opportunity Threshold Percentage: The bill frequently references this vague metric in determining matching fund requirements for local educational agencies. Without a clear definition, there is a risk of inconsistent application, which could disproportionately affect agencies with less financial capacity.
Teacher Housing Costs: The text mentions that rebuilding teacher housing in one Arizona local educational agency is estimated at $100 million. However, the bill does not provide a clear plan on managing these significant costs. The substantial investment required for housing might strain the overall effectiveness of the grant money when there are numerous other needs.
Broad Criteria for Grant Eligibility: The criteria for grant awards may be too inclusive, potentially allowing many schools to qualify. This inclusiveness could dilute the financial impact of the allocated funds by stretching resources thin across a broader range of projects without necessarily addressing the most critical needs.
Compliance and Legal Challenges: The mention of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title IX, without clear guidance on enforcement, can lead to varying interpretations. Financial mismanagement here might result in not only compliance costs but also potential legal ramifications that could further deplete the fund's efficacy.
Handling Unspent Funds: The Act mentions that funds should remain available until expended, but it fails to specify the exact procedures for unspent money after the funds are no longer available. This absence might lead to inefficiencies and questions about fiscal accountability.
SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT: The clause aims to ensure that the federal funds augment existing resources. However, issues around monitoring and enforcing this provision could arise, leading to possible misuse where funds replace rather than enhance pre-existing financial commitments.
This analysis underscores the importance of clear definitions, criteria, and procedures to ensure the effective use of the funds authorized by the Impact Aid Infrastructure Partnership Act.
Issues
The definition and allocation criteria for 'learning opportunity threshold total percentage' are unclear (Sections 2 and 8). This lack of clarity may lead to inconsistent application of funding requirements and potentially disadvantage less affluent local educational agencies.
The provision for building teacher housing on Indian Treaty and Federal trust lands involves significant expenditure ($100,000,000) without detailing a comprehensive plan or alternative solutions to the housing problem (Section 2). This could raise concerns about effective use of federal funds.
The criteria for identifying local educational agencies for grant awards under Section 4 might be too broad, resulting in a large number of agencies qualifying, which can dilute the impact of funding.
The language regarding 'compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972' in the findings is vague (Section 2). This could lead to varying interpretations and possible legal challenges if compliance issues arise.
The text does not specify what happens to any unspent funds after they are no longer available (Section 3). This could lead to inefficiencies and questions of accountability.
The language used in the section on formula grants is overly complex and difficult to understand (Section 5). This complexity could result in misinterpretation and misapplication of the formula.
The 'SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT' clause might be difficult to enforce (Section 9). Ensuring federal funds are not used to replace, but instead augment, existing funds is a common issue with grants and susceptible to oversight challenges.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section states that the Act is officially named the “Impact Aid Infrastructure Partnership Act”.
2. Findings and purpose Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress has identified several issues with the condition of school facilities in federally impacted areas, such as unsafe buildings, difficulty in obtaining funding, and challenges in ensuring teacher retention due to inadequate housing. The purpose of the Act is to create a partnership that provides financial assistance to these schools through grants, with the aim of improving their infrastructure and ensuring a safe learning environment.
Money References
- One Arizona local educational agency estimated that the cost to rebuild antiquated teacher housing to be $100,000,000.
- For example, the Hawaii Department of Education has identified more than $2,000,000,000 in needed repair, renovation, and construction projects to address— (A) structural and health and safety needs; (B) compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.)
- The partnership shall be designed to— (1) provide formula grants to federally impacted local educational agencies that have no capacity to issue bonds because of the presence of large parcels of non-taxable Federal property; (2) provide partnership grants requiring a local match to local educational agencies that have a limited capacity to provide facility funding; (3) base local matching dollars on the learning opportunity threshold total percentage, as described in subparagraph (B)(i) of section 7003(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(3)); and (4) provide grants under section 7007(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7707(a)) to address local educational agency needs to modernize and provide basic building improvements.
3. Impact aid construction grants authorized Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines the authorization of $250 million in annual funding for four years for impact aid construction grants. 75% of the funds will be designated for competitive grants, and 25% for formula grants, both aimed at supporting educational infrastructure. Funds remain available until used, with a small percentage reserved for technical assistance and oversight, and the authority to award these grants will end after four years.
Money References
- IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated $250,000,000 for the first fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of this Act, and each of the 3 succeeding fiscal years.
4. Competitive grant awards based on facility condition Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of Education will give out competitive grants to local educational agencies that have facilities in poor or unsafe conditions. Priority for these grants is given first to those with buildings that pose health risks or do not meet safety or technology standards, and then to those needing teacher housing improvements.
5. Formula grants Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that the Secretary of Education is instructed to allocate funds to local educational agencies by considering additional groups of students who may not have qualified under certain existing requirements, but who meet different criteria from another act. Specifically, the Secretary should include students from certain defined groups when calculating fund allocations if they make up at least 20% of a school's enrollment in the previous year.
6. Application Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
A local educational agency that wants to receive a grant must send in an application with the required information, as decided by the Secretary of Education. The application must be submitted in a specific timeframe.
7. Award criteria Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines how the Secretary of Education should prioritize school districts when awarding grants. First, priority is given to districts with limited ability to tax or issue bonds, especially those with property values under $50 million. Next, consideration goes to districts with property values under $100 million or per-student property values below the state average. Lastly, the Secretary considers factors like the number of eligible children, potential community use, and project feasibility within two years.
Money References
- When awarding a grant under section 4, the Secretary of Education shall first apply the facility condition priority listing established under such section, and after such priority requirements are applied, the Secretary of Education shall then— (1) first consider those local educational agencies (or, in the case of a local educational agency that does not have the authority to tax or issue bonds, the agency’s fiscal agent) that have limited or no capacity to issue bonds or have a total assessed value of real property that may be taxed for school purposes of less than $50,000,000; (2) next consider those local educational agencies not described in paragraph (1) that— (A) have a total assessed value of real property that may be taxed for school purposes of less than $100,000,000; or (B) have an assessed value of real property that may be taxed for school purposes per student that is less than the average of the assessed value of real property that may be taxed for school purposes per student in the State in which the local educational agency is located; and (3) finally consider— (A) the number and percentages of children described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of section 7003(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1)) enrolled in the school facility to be supported with grant funds; (B) the learning opportunity threshold total percentage as described in subparagraph (B)(i) of section 7003(b)(3) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(3)); (C) with respect to local educational agencies eligible for payments under section 7002 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7702), the percentage of land in the local educational agency that is Federal property; (D) the potential use for community programs and events in the school facility to be supported with grant funds; (E) the feasibility of project completion within 24 months from the grant award; and (F) the availability of other resources for the proposed project including the use of in-kind contributions.
8. Payments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines how the Secretary of Education should make grant payments to local educational agencies under certain criteria. Agencies that cannot issue bonds receive full payment, while others must contribute a percentage of the project cost based on specific guidelines. Payments may also be redistributed if not used within the designated time.
Money References
- (3) Make payment as required in full for those local educational agencies described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 4, whose payment is $5,000,000 or less for the year in which they are to receive the grant.
- (4) Make payment to those local educational agencies described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 4, whose payment is more than $5,000,000 for the year in which they are to receive the grant, after final drawings and specifications have been approved by the Secretary of Education and the construction contract has been entered into, in accordance with requirements as determined by the Secretary of Education and at such times and in such installments as may be reasonable.
9. General provisions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the rules for using grant funds under the Act, stating that local educational agencies can spend them on school construction, renovation, or repair, but not on projects for facilities they don't fully own or on buying new property. It also mentions that any funds received should add to, not replace, existing non-Federal funding, mandates annual reports by the Secretary of Education on the grant's impact, and allows grant applications not awarded in a fiscal year to be reconsidered in the following year.