Summary#
HB 945 would have created a new child care infrastructure grant program, run by the Montana Department of Commerce. Its stated goal was to increase child care capacity by helping create new programs or expand existing ones. The bill failed, so it did not take effect.
- The department would have been authorized to award up to $10 million in grants for property acquisition, construction, space acquisition, expansion, remodeling, repairs, and developmentally appropriate equipment and supplies.
- Eligible applicants would have included child care facilities and school districts; individuals and partnerships would have been ineligible. Applicants would also have had to be a recognized Montana government unit or a Montana-incorporated entity in good standing.
- Grants of $50,000 or more would have required at least $1 in private matching funds or appraised in-kind assets for each $1 of grant funding.
- The department would have had to prioritize certain applications if requests exceeded available funds, including projects in rural areas or child care deserts, projects increasing infant care, and expansions of existing tribal child care programs.
- The bill would have exempted its provisions from specified environmental review requirements under Title 75, but not from all environmental rules.
What it means for you#
- Child care providers and school districts: They could have applied for grants to build or expand child care services. Grants would have been capped at $500,000 per project, with no more than two funded applications and $700,000 total per county.
- New child care providers: A new facility would have had to use technical assistance on start-up as a grant condition. Existing facilities expanding their services could have accessed that assistance.
- Grant recipients: They would have had to use a contract, receive funds through reimbursement, keep grant and matching money in a separate account, and submit quarterly progress and financial reports with paid invoices.
- Families and the public: The bill would not have created a direct child care benefit or guaranteed a new space for any family. Any increase in available care would have depended on funded projects.
- Applicants in government: Government applicants would have had to follow specified public notice and participation requirements. Those requirements would not have applied to nongovernmental applicants.
Money#
The bill would have transferred $10 million from the state general fund to a new account and appropriated $10 million to the Department of Commerce.
- The department could have used up to 20% of the appropriated funds for administration, leaving less for grants if it used that full amount.
- Grant payments would have been made on a reimbursement basis. The materials give no estimate of additional staffing or other costs beyond the appropriation.
- The bill allowed the appropriation to continue through the end of the biennium beginning July 1, 2029, and set a termination date of June 30, 2031.
What is unclear#
- The bill says matching support for grants of $50,000 or more may be private cash or appraised in-kind assets, but its application requirements call for evidence of a cash match. It is unclear how those provisions would have fit together.
- The definition of an eligible child care facility includes tribal centers and applicants still establishing a facility, but applicants also had to be a recognized Montana government unit or a Montana-incorporated entity. The bill does not explain how that rule would apply to every tribal applicant.
- “Rural areas” is not defined in the bill. The Department of Labor and Industry would determine which areas are child care deserts, but the bill does not set out that determination process.
- The bill does not specify how the department would rank applications within the listed priorities, or how many grants it expected to award. No publicly available information.
- The bill’s stated start date was July 1, 2025, but it failed and did not take effect.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to address a shortage of child care spaces by funding construction, repairs, expansion, and equipment.
- One-time grants could help providers cover large facility costs that may be difficult to pay from operating income.
- The listed priorities would have directed attention, when funds were insufficient, to rural areas, infant care, nonstandard hours, smaller programs, and tribal program expansions.
- Requiring plans, progress reports, and financial records could have helped the department track how grant money was used.
Case against#
- A possible trade-off is that the match and reimbursement rules could favor applicants able to front costs or secure private funds. The bill does not explain whether in-kind matches would satisfy the application’s cash-match requirement.
- The department could have used up to one-fifth of the appropriation for administration, reducing the amount available for projects.
- The environmental review exemption could have reduced review of projects under the specified Title 75 provisions; the bill does not describe a replacement review process.
- The bill set broad priorities but did not specify how applications would be scored or how the department would resolve competing priorities.