HB706 would change how North Carolina distributes certain education-related state funds and school capital grants. First, it revises the needs-based public school capital fund by changing the eligibility and local match rules for counties seeking grants. Under the bill, counties could qualify based on either property wealth or the presence of census tracts identified as persistent poverty or low-to-moderate income areas, and the bill adjusts the required local matching share based on county property values. It also requires the Department of Public Instruction to publish match requirements annually and applies the match rate in effect when a grant is awarded.
The bill also makes a separate change to cooperative innovative high school funding by requiring the Department of Public Instruction to distribute that supplemental allotment in equal amounts per school on a recurring basis for qualifying schools beginning in fiscal year 2025-2026. In addition, it repeals prior statutory provisions tied to that funding structure. Finally, HB706 prohibits state education funding agencies from using a county’s economic development tier designation as the basis for allocating state education funds to K-12 schools, community colleges, UNC institutions, grant programs, bond proceeds, or supplemental allotments beginning in 2025-2026.
HB706 would amend G.S. 115C-546.11 governing the needs-based public school capital fund and would repeal portions of Session Law 2017-57 related to cooperative innovative high school supplemental allotments. It would also create a statewide prohibition on using Department of Commerce economic tier designations in allocating education funds, affecting state agencies that distribute money to public schools, community colleges, and UNC institutions. The bill would therefore shift funding formulas away from economic tier status and toward other criteria, while changing local match obligations and grant eligibility for school capital projects.
Based on the bill text and the absence of committee testimony or recorded votes, the measure appears to be framed as a funding-formula and equity adjustment rather than a controversial policy overhaul. Its sponsors suggest support for redirecting education resources based on need and property wealth rather than economic tier labels. Because no votes or hearing transcripts are available, there is no documented public sentiment in the provided materials, but the bill’s structure indicates an intent to broaden access for certain counties and standardize some funding distributions.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s removal of economic development tier designations from education funding formulas and its revised local match requirements for capital grants. Counties or institutions that benefit from current tier-based allocations could oppose the change, while counties with lower property wealth or qualifying poverty/low-income census tracts may support it. Another possible issue is the equal per-school distribution of cooperative innovative high school supplemental allotments, which may be seen as reducing flexibility or changing how funds are targeted. No specific objections or supporters are recorded in the provided discussion materials.