CHEYENNE — The Select Committee on School Facilities on Aug. 20 reviewed 26 LSO 87, a working draft that would make permanent a temporary increase in the allowable educational gross square footage used to calculate K‑12 major and routine maintenance funding.

"In your packet, you have 26 LSO, 87 working draft, 0.4, of the bill title's K‑12 school facilities maintenance and appropriations," said Tanya Heitrich, operations administrator for the Legislative Service Office, introducing the draft and the changes it would make to existing statute language.

The bill would change the funding model so the allowable educational gross square footage used in both the major maintenance and routine maintenance formulas is the lesser of actual district/school square footage or 135% of the adequacy standards set by the School Facilities Commission, instead of the current statutory 115% (which was set to revert after a one‑year increase). The draft includes appropriations to cover the higher funding level in the next school year so districts can plan.

Catherine Cammaratti, LSO budget fiscal staff, presented LSO's estimated fiscal impacts, saying the adjustment would increase funding calculated by the major maintenance formula by about $331,900,000 over the 2026–27 and 2027–28 school years and would add roughly $11,800,000 in routine maintenance funding over the same period. Heitrich and Cammaratti also identified a one‑time additional annual appropriation figure in the draft: approximately $31,900,000 for major maintenance and $11,800,000 for routine maintenance to reflect the change in the statutory percentage for the coming year.

Cammaratti explained how the major maintenance formula works: authorized gross square footage multiplied by a per‑square‑foot replacement value produces a replacement cost; that total is multiplied by 2.5% to arrive at an annual major maintenance amount. She also noted that the ‘‘lesser of’’ calculation is applied at the district level for major maintenance and at the school level for routine maintenance, and that shifting from 115% to 135% would add roughly 960,000 square feet into the major maintenance base.

Representative Bratton asked whether there is any data yet showing how districts used the temporary increase to 135% this year. "Do we have any data information on the effectiveness of that change?" she asked. LSO staff and a department representative said it is too early to evaluate: the one‑year change took effect July 1 for the 2025–26 school year, and districts had only been operating under the higher allowance for about six weeks at the time of the committee hearing.

Committee members and staff also discussed how the state budget request interacts with the formula change. Committee staff said a separate agency exception request of about $59 million in the department's budget reflects baseline funding assumptions (including a 2.5% multiplier and the current 115% allowance) and does not replace the supplemental funding the draft would require; the 31.9 million (major maintenance) and 11.8 million (routine maintenance) proposed in the draft would be additional to the status quo request.

No committee vote on the bill draft was recorded in the public portion of the meeting; the committee approved meeting minutes and then voted to enter executive session. Chair Landon moved the meeting forward to executive session after the committee discussion and asked staff to walk through the draft in more detail in closed session.

What the committee reviewed at this hearing was a draft proposal and LSO estimates; statutory language and appropriation amounts remain subject to change through the bill drafting and fiscal‑note process. LSO staff said a formal fiscal note would be prepared when the bill is introduced, and that more precise estimates will be available in the coming months.

The Select Committee's next public steps on this draft were not announced on the record at the close of the public discussion.