| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SF 16: SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES - MAINTENANCE - 1998 Budget/Special Session Sponsor: School Capital Construction Committee
SF 16 proposed a formula for allocating state funds to school districts for deferred maintenance and major, non-routine maintenance (e.g., carpets, roofs, boilers). Money for school maintenance was formerly provided by local optional mills and the block grants allocated to districts under the School Foundation Program. With the repeal of the optional mills due to the school finance lawsuit, more funding for maintenance must come from the state. Another consulting firm, MGT of America, hired by the Wyoming Department of Education specifically to assess capital construction needs, classified all school buildings in the state according to a uniform set of standards, and evaluated maintenance and capital construction needs. SF 16 specifically earmarked the proposed state funding for deferred and major, non-routine maintenance only, and allowed districts to carry over funding from year to year to finance bigger projects. The bill did not specify where the money would come from (that was supposed to be designated in a different bill, but never was). SF 16 started out with an annual cost of approximately $50 million, based on a school building industry standard formula pegging major maintenance at 3% of replacement value. After debate over whether there was double-counting with the maintenance money included in the MAP model, it was suggested that the 3% could be dropped to 2% for one year, while the school districts established more uniform and precise methods for collecting data on maintenance expenditures. The Senate approved an amendment to go from 3% to 2%, which dropped the funding to $33.4 million, and passed SF 16, 19-11. A second reading amendment in the House to further reduce the funding from 2% ($33.4 million) to 1% ($16.6 million) initially failed 29-29 (2 excused), but passed on third reading, 31-27 (2 excused; vote is shown below). Proponents of maintaining the maintenance funding at 2% argued that at least $33 million was needed to meet the Wyoming Supreme Court's standard of "safe and efficient" school buildings, and to prevent further buildup of deferred maintenance. They also pointed to the bill's provision allowing districts to carry over funds, thereby retaining some local control. Opponents argued that $16 million was all the state could afford. Representatives switching their votes between second and third readings on the 2% to 1% funding amendment were: Bruce Burns (R-H51, Sheridan), Randall Luthi (R-H21, Freedom) and Harry Tipton (R-H33, Lander), all no to yes; and Pat Nagel (R-H56, Casper), yes to no. After cutting the funding to $16.6 million, the House then passed the bill, 57-1 (2 excused). The Senate concurred with this version of the bill, leaving state funding for deferred and major, non-routine maintenance at $16.6 million. When "non-eligible" square footage (building space in excess of standards for space per student, administration and storage space, etc.) is subtracted from the $16.6 million, the actual expenditure will total only $13.6 million. The votes listed below are the third reading (final passage) vote in the Senate, and the House vote on the amendment to reduce funding from $33.4 million to $16.6 million. SENATE VOTE - THIRD READING A YES vote means the senator favored funding deferred and major, non-routine maintenance for one year at $33.4 million, a level designed to ensure safe and efficient schools. In another of those difficult to interpret cases, a NO vote means the senator thought $33.4 million was either too much -- or too little.
HOUSE VOTE - THIRD READING AMENDMENT TO CUT MAINTENANCE FUNDING FROM $33.4 MILLION TO $16.6 MILLION A YES vote means the legislator favored cutting proposed funding for deferred and major, non-routine maintenance to a minimal level, beneath that recommended to ensure safe and efficient schools. A NO vote means the legislator opposed cutting maintenance funding to this level.
www.equalitystate.org Copyright 1999, Equality State Policy Center | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||