State construction staff present school condition and capacity schedules; one building flagged for new study

State construction management staff outlined the department’s 2025 condition and capacity schedules for K‑12 school facilities, describing how facilities above the department’s FCI thresholds are prioritized for further study or remedy. John Rexes, construction management supervisor for state construction, told the Select Committee on School Facilities that “statute requires that we establish two remediation schedules, one per condition, one per capacity” and that the 2025 schedules use adjusted 2023 facility condition index scores alongside updated replacement costs and deactivated deficiencies where work has already been completed. The report covers two related prioritizations: a condition schedule that flags educational and non‑educational facilities for remediation studies (Mercer studies) and a capacity schedule that compares “brick and mortar” on‑site student counts the Wyoming Department of Education provides each October to adjusted building capacity, then projects eight years forward using a cohort survival method. Rexes explained the threshold logic the division uses: facilities that exceed a 0.3 FCI are flagged for a most‑cost‑effective remedy study. He said most buildings above that threshold already have either a remedy in place or an active/complete Mercer: “there’s only one building that doesn’t currently have a remedy in place or a Mercer study in place that’s above that threshold of 0.3… Douglas Intermediate ES…We have already placed that on the schedule for Mercers.” Committee members pressed staff about how the department treats non‑instructional school facilities. The chairman noted “about five out of the top 10 are concession stands,” and Rexes said the consultant assessed any building on site and the department included them in the database even if some are “enhancement” facilities rather than those required for adequacy standards. Capacity methodology drew several questions. Rexes and other staff described that the division computes current restricted capacity using square footage per student by space type and then runs eight‑year projections using cohort survival rates and configuration‑specific rates of change. The project horizon assumes an individual school project will take about three years and that statute requires the department to look five years after project completion, which together drives the eight‑year planning window. Senators and representatives asked about the restricted capacity standard that uses 16:1 for K–3 and a 25:1 restricted ratio for grades 4–6; one lawmaker said the funding model assumes 16:1 through grade 6 and 21:1 thereafter. The director and staff said the 25:1 restricted ratio appears in commission rules and reflected prior adequacy hearings; staff deferred to a follow‑up by the department to reconcile the different ratios. What’s next: staff expect to continue real‑time tracking of deactivated deficiencies as projects complete and to bring Mercer study schedules forward to the commission. The committee asked staff to provide follow‑up clarifications on restricted capacity, and Rexes said the department will re‑examine facilities near the 0.3 threshold — he cited Cokeville at 0.299 as a building “that may not take very much” to cross that threshold and warrant study.