New heating and air conditioning systems, carpeting, windows, doors, asphalt and playgrounds: these are some of the school facility projects funded by House Bill 521.

Most school districts do not receive enough money from the state infrastructure fund to finance a new building. In fact, only nine of Idaho’s 115 school districts receive at least $30 million, the estimated cost of a new elementary school. But according to long-term building plans recently filed with the Idaho Department of Education, school officials are planning modest to major building renovations, from new roofs to replacing sprinkler systems and sidewalks.

The law, HB 521, which took effect earlier this year, provides $1.5 billion to school districts for building and site improvements. The bulk of the money comes from a $1 billion state facilities bond, which is paid out in lump sums and divided among districts using an attendance-based formula.

But before the districts can receive their share, the Ministry of Education must 10-year facilities plan outlining how the money will be spent. As of Friday, the department has approved 25 facilities plans and $241.8 million in spending for local projects. The projects that are completed the fastest are expected to start receiving the money in October.

Meanwhile, state and local education officials say The long-term planning process required by HB 521 serves several purposes. This has prompted local school leaders to more closely analyse the extent of their facility needs and prioritise the most urgent projects.

“It was eye-opening, to say the least,” said Basil Morris, superintendent of the Firth School District. “We knew we had some problems. Then when you really dig into a facility plan, you realize the cost of things is pretty high.”

And for the state, the planning process is an accountability measure. It ensures that districts spend state funds within the parameters set by HB 521. Schools can only use the money for major projects and not for routine maintenance, such as fixing a broken window or patching a pothole. The state department plans to review spending every year, according to Spencer Barzee, the Department of Education’s Eastern Idaho regional director.

The facilities plans also meet a broader goal—one that is in the interest of both state and local policymakers. Overall, the plans will provide a statewide assessment of the condition of school facilities for the first time. A comprehensive picture of needs should help policymakers weigh future spending on facilities.

“We’ll have numbers across the country on where the greatest need is,” Barzee said. “So we can say, ‘Hey, we’re grateful for the money here, but we still have additional need.'”

How is the need determined?

The Department of Education has partnered with Jacobs Construction, an international company with offices in Boise, to adopt the company’s assessment software and make it available to school districts.

The computer tool asks local decision-makers to examine their buildings and properties and rate their condition. Facilities are divided into 11 categories, including electrical, plumbing, roofing, fire and security, and heating, ventilation and air conditioning, among others. And there are four possible ratings – good, fair, poor and replace – determined using a rating scheme.

For example, a parking lot is in “good” condition if it shows “no visible signs of damage or defects” and “regular maintenance is sufficient to maintain (its) existing function,” the agency’s assessment states. A “fair” rating means the parking lot has minor damage but remains usable without disruption, while a “poor” rating reflects major damage that affects its use. “Replace” is reserved for parking lots “that show signs of defects” that require “emergency treatment.”

The assessment tool then takes the ratings entered into account and determines an estimated dollar amount needed to bring all facilities into “good” condition. The goal of the standardized assessment is consistency, Barzee said.

“It increases the credibility of all the data we present to lawmakers, that we review and that we publish nationwide,” he said.

Counties are not required to use the department’s assessment tool, but to qualify for their share of HB 521 funding, they must provide state agencies with an outline of their planned construction, renovation and maintenance projects, along with the estimated resources needed to complete the work.

Plans must be submitted by July 1, 2025, and districts that miss the deadline won’t receive their money. But Barzee predicts the vast majority of facility plans will be completed by January, well ahead of the due date.

“The districts can’t wait to receive their funds and start the projects,” he said.

The Department of Education has approved the facilities plans of the following districts. The right column shows each district’s share of the state’s $1 billion facilities bond:

District name	Lump sum
Lapwai	$1,898,486.65
Sugar Salem	$6,428,360.96
Rockland	700,490.80 USD
Madison	$22,261,630.76
Fjord	$3,387,963.31
Shelley	10,194,063.48 USD
Buhl	$4,915,125.27
Emmet	$9,178,754.83
Highland	681,711.46 USD
Twin Falls	35,680,340.52 USD
Parma	$4,099,763.92
McCall-Donnelly	$5,447,741.35
Vallivue	38,818,053.18 USD
Bonneville	48,003,296.61 USD
Lake Pend Oreille	15,184,010.75 USD
Bruneau Grand View	$1,047,634.45
Challis	$1,323,880.78
Fruitland	6,360,755.31 USD
Salmon	$2,582,983.37
Butte County	$1,555,689.68
Wiesental	479,780.71 USD
Aberdeen	$2,528,037.95
Bergheim	14,276,018.69 USD
Wendell	4,399,431.69 USD
Salmon River	521,601.69 USD

Where does the money go?

Assessing facility needs is nothing new for school districts. Local leaders have long conducted informal assessments to create spending forecasts. But the state’s new assessment tool has changed their perspective on long-term needs.

“I had a rough idea of ​​what things would cost,” said Jared Jenks, superintendent of the Sugar-Salem School District. “But when you convert that into real dollars, to completely replace a building or just parts of it … I found it really insightful and informative.”

Sugar-Salem’s facilities plan calls for $7.4 million in upgrades over the next 10 years, including adding a new roof to the elementary school for $500,000 and a roof to the high school for $1 million. HB 521’s attendance-based formula calculated Sugar-Salem’s share at $6.4 million.

Idaho Education News reviewed the facility plans of five districts and found that the most common and/or expensive improvements involve heating and air conditioning, technology, site improvements — such as new asphalt, gravel, sprinklers or playground equipment – ​​and special projects such as new showers and carpets in changing rooms or handicapped accessible doors.

The Rockland school district estimates it will need $710,000 over the next decade, Buhl said $8.8 million is needed and Madison is anticipating $17.6 million for facility upgrades. The Madison figure does not include the estimated $60 million junior high school planned for fiscal year 2027.

Firth will receive $3.4 million from the state, which will cover less than two-thirds of the projects included in the district’s facilities plan. Morris, the superintendent, said district leaders plan to spend the money on upgrading windows, doors and ventilation systems.

Cutting back on the district’s most pressing priorities will be a challenge, Morris said, as will complying with the state’s spending limits. Many of Firth’s needs are related to sports, and HB 521 specifically prohibits spending the money on sports facilities.

“I’m not particularly enthusiastic about some of the caveats to these funds,” Morris said, noting that the bill’s provisions eliminated longstanding maintenance funds that paid employee salaries. Firth will tap into general fund resources to cover those costs. “They should find a way to allocate that money so that people can do general maintenance and pay salaries.”

Still, Morris praised the state’s efforts to identify facility needs and offer assistance. “I think the state is doing its best to provide the resources needed,” he said.