School capital construction.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
SF0105 Bill No.: SF0105 Drafter: TH LSO No.: 12LSO-0304 Effective Date: March 6, 2012; July 1, 2012; July 1, 2013 Enrolled Act No.: SEA0009 Chapter No.: CH0016 Prime Sponsor: Joint Appropriations Interim Committee Catch Title: School capital construction. Subject: Funding for school capital construction projects addressing facility needs during the 2013‑2014 biennium. Summary/Major Elements: Appropriates $467,736,862 to the school facilities commission for school construction for the biennium, broken down as follows: o $10,753,340 effective immediately for completion of capital construction projects previously funded under 2011‑2012 biennial budgets; o $870,000 effective immediately for facility planning projects; o $6,895,163 effective immediately for design projects, in addition to $52,428,087 effective July 1, 2012. Design projects for which there is no capital construction funding in this budget will be considered for capital construction project funding in the 2013 supplemental budget, given funding priority over any building capacity issues forwarded by the commission following study and evaluation; o $5,796,000 effective immediately for component level project funding; o $15,322,301 effective immediately for land acquisitions; o $1,412,000 effective immediately for ancillary building projects; o $102,240 effective immediately for demolition projects; o $450,000 effective immediately for track projects; o $10,050,000 effective immediately for capital construction projects, together with an additional $227,508,001 effective July 1, 2012, and $119,238,308.00 effective July 1, 2013; o $16,911,422 for unanticipated costs associated with planning, design, capital construction and component projects. In addition to amounts appropriated for capital construction in this budget, 5 additional projects are to be considered by the legislature for funding in the 2013 supplemental budget in the priority and for the amounts specified, estimated at $114,358,633; Of total appropriations, $51,651,044 is effective immediately, $296,847,510 is effective July 1, 2012, and $119,238,308 is effective July 1, 2013; Previous appropriations for the Natrona county school district no. 1 high school projects of $108,440,000, combined with amounts appropriated for design and construction in this budget, forward the following projects in this district: o $30,082,554 for the design of 2 high school buildings, a shared facility and an alternative high school building; o $88,763,997 for a high school building and $27,938,607 for a shared facility, effective the first year of the 2013‑2014 biennium; o $119,238,308 for a second high school building effective the second year of the 2013‑2014 biennium; o $16,318,523 estimated for an alternative high school building, to be considered for funding in the 2013 supplemental budget. Directs use of the standard enrollment projection approach of the school facilities department, based upon a five (5) year projection period commencing on the date of anticipated completion of project construction, as the basis for developing building square footage numbers used in projects forwarded in this budget, allows for adjustment by the department as necessary to reflect more precise analysis; Requires school boards to incorporate a collaborative committee process, advisory to the board, in planning district facility remedies; Prevents sweep of excess amounts within capital construction account (including holding account) into the common school permanent land fund on June 30, 2012, maintains excess amounts within capital construction account, prevents deposit of any excess school foundation program account funds on June 30, 2013 into capital construction account, and appropriates from capital construction account as follows: o Amounts into the school foundation program account as necessary to restore school foundation program account balance at $100,000,000 on June 30, 2014; o Amounts within capital construction account in excess of legislative appropriations under this budget, continuously appropriated to a separate holding account through June 30, 2014.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 7, 5:39 PM
H05
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that changing the capacity projection formula from five years after design to five years after completion causes schools to be over-designed and unnecessarily expensive given current resource constraints.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes schools are long-term assets that require a longer capacity outlook to avoid immediate overcrowding and future reconstruction costs.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because many schools in his state have experienced extreme growth and lack basic facilities like closets, making immediate funding necessary.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it removes essential design and planning funds for a middle school in his district that is leaking and overcrowded.
H54
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes it delays necessary projects for schools with known capacity issues and sets back other critical construction efforts.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill and opposes the amendment because she views the current legislation as a necessary compromise that addresses schools which have been in the priority process for five years.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes reverting to the five-year design projection method provides equity and prevents skewed numbers that lead to over-building.
R · S30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it represents a reasonable compromise that addresses major concerns while acknowledging future funding prospects.
S04
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as a reasonable compromise that resolves concerns about bundling by switching which schools are placed on the funding bubble list.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges a vote against the amendment because it commits future revenues based on unrealistic gas price projections, which he views as bad policy and effectively borrowing.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because rejecting it would leave Natrona County without direction after years of following rules, whereas this provides a path forward.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as a reasonable compromise, acknowledging that while not ideal, it is necessary given the cooperative efforts of other senators.
S18
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports unbundling the Casper projects because they believe bundling them together is unprecedented in other school districts and opposes that approach.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges defeating the amendment to maintain a prioritized funding process based on needs indexes, arguing against picking and choosing projects which caused past issues.
S03
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes disaggregating the projects because it would delay construction in Casper and cause a boom-and-bust cycle for contractors due to workforce limitations.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker questions supporting the current legislation due to unexplained high costs per square foot for the proposed schools compared to state averages.
S26
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment due to concerns over rising project costs and the need to prioritize other schools with reasonable costs that are being left out.
R · S30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges defeating the amendment to avoid political log-rolling and maintain a professional, routine process similar to the water development program.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports defeating the amendment to encourage educational innovation and avoid destroying a community-developed bundled approach by phasing it in.
D · S09
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports unbundling to uphold a fair process based on individual school needs indexes rather than aggregating schools into one project, which sets an unfair precedent.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
6 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
5 stored
Failed 3rd reading by TEETERS
Failed Standing Committee by H02
Adopted 2nd reading by ROTHFUSS
Adopted 3rd reading by COE
Adopted 3rd reading by NICHOLAS,P