The Select Committee on School Facilities voted to sponsor 26 LSO 87, a bill that would make permanent an increase in the allowable educational gross square footage used in K‑12 major and routine maintenance funding formulas, committee members decided Wednesday.

The bill—described to the committee as “K‑12 school facilities maintenance and appropriations”—would replace the one‑year change enacted earlier this legislative session and restore the allowance used to compute district and school funding from 115% to 135% of the School Facilities Commission’s adequacy standards. Tanya Heitrich, operations administrator for the Legislative Service Office (LSO), summarized the draft and said Section 2 contains appropriations to implement the change, including $31,900,000 for major maintenance and $11,800,000 for routine maintenance in the bill draft.

Why it matters: Committee staff and the State Construction Department told members that increasing the allowable square footage and maintaining a slightly higher major‑maintenance multiplier is intended to reduce long‑term capital replacement needs by extending building life and addressing unfunded excess square footage that districts currently maintain without state support. Director Dale McComley of the State Construction Department told the committee prior studies showed underfunding major maintenance shortened building life spans and that higher steady funding can avoid larger capital costs decades later.

Committee discussion and staff estimates

Catherine Camarotti of LSO’s budget staff told the committee that making the 135% allowance permanent would be incorporated into the state construction department’s standard budget and produced LSO estimates of increased funding needs. In the presentation she said LSO’s estimate of the major maintenance formula’s funding increase was large when projected across upcoming years and reiterated the $11,800,000 figure for routine maintenance associated with the draft appropriation. LSO and department staff also pointed out that earlier, separate changes to the replacement‑value multiplier (from 2.0% to 2.5%) produced a separate budget exception request; those dollars, the staff explained, fund the status quo under current law and would not by themselves cover the incremental cost of moving from 115% to 135%.

State Construction Department director Dale McComley discussed the policy background: consultants and department analyses presented during an interim study estimated that increasing major‑maintenance funding and addressing excess square footage would lengthen expected building lifespans and reduce future capital construction need. McComley cited past studies that modeled life‑cycle scenarios and said the department’s estimate of capital cost avoidance over many decades supported the recommendation for higher recurring maintenance funding.

Questions from members focused on near‑term evidence and budget treatment. Representative Bratton asked whether there was data on how the one‑year, 135% change had been spent; department staff and LSO noted the 135% increase took effect for the 2025‑26 school year and that it was too early to measure district spending patterns from that single year. Committee staff and the department also described technical formula differences: major maintenance is calculated at the district level, while routine maintenance is calculated at the school level, and those differences affect how much unfunded square footage remains under different percentage ceilings.

Votes at a glance

- 26 LSO 87, K‑12 school facilities maintenance and appropriations — Motion to sponsor passed on roll call. Moved by Senator Rothfuss; seconded by Representative Provenza. Vote: 9 yes, 0 no, 1 excused. Identified roll‑call responses included Senator Dockstader (aye), Senator McKeown (aye), Representative Gratton (aye), Representative Geringer (aye), Representative Haft (aye), Representative Provenza (aye), and Chairman Landon (aye); Vice Chair Angelos was excused.

Next steps and context

Committee members and department staff said the bill draft will continue through the committee and legislative processes. LSO staff noted a fiscal note will be prepared on an introduced version and that the committee will consider the broader biennial budget request in October. Department staff also signaled several related implementation items committee members may see later: updates to the School Facilities Commission adequacy standards, additional grants or targeted funding for school security and vestibules, and training for district facility managers on routine‑maintenance planning.

What was not decided or remains uncertain

Committee members asked about the short‑term evidence of the year‑long 135% change, the interaction between the multiplier change (2.0% → 2.5%) and the allowable‑square‑footage change, and how districts’ accumulated major‑maintenance balances would be used or constrained. Staff said the 2.5% multiplier change and the 135% allowance are separate budget items: the standard‑budget increase tied to the multiplier is an existing request in agency budgets, while the 135% allowance adds the incremental $31.9 million (major) and $11.8 million (routine) described in the draft.

Quotes

"In your packet, you have 26 LSO 87 working draft 0.4. The bill title is K‑12 school facilities maintenance and appropriations," Tanya Heitrich, operations administrator for the Legislative Service Office, told the committee as she walked through the draft.

"LSO estimates the funding computed by the major maintenance formula to increase substantially," Catherine Camarotti, LSO budget fiscal staff, told members while reviewing LSO’s estimates and the draft appropriation figures.

"We're really underfunding our major maintenance. Our life expectancy for our buildings based on that funding level was anywhere between 35 and 50 years," Dale McComley, director of the State Construction Department, told the committee in support of the permanent change.

Ending

After discussion and public testimony (none was offered at the committee’s public comment call for this bill), the Select Committee moved and approved sponsorship of 26 LSO 87. Staff and department witnesses told members they will provide a fiscal note and updated budget details as the bill advances and as the committee continues its October review of the department’s biennial budget request.