Planning & Financing

Facility plans detail the ways each district intends to remedy the facility needs of education, administration, and transportation buildings within its jurisdiction.

Under SFC Rules and Regulations, facility plans are required to include a full outline of major maintenance, details on facility modifications (including grade configurations), justifications for new or replacement facilities, anticipated land acquisitions, and an estimated cost for all remedies being proposed.

Assisting each district with developing a long-range, comprehensive facility plan is, by statute, a fundamental duty of the School Facilities Department.

Facility Planning is one of the most fundamental duties of the SFD. Wyoming law requires SFD to gather and maintain a database on each school district's facilities. That's why the SFD conducts a Condition Assessment every four years, which studies the condition of each educational building.

The timing of the next condition assessment is yet to be determined. The SCD is in the process of engaging stakeholders to help define and measure educational suitability, which is by state statute a part of the assessment. Once defined, the SCD will then solicit a professional service provider to assess buildings statewide.

2016 Indices

The rankings reflected in the following documents are based on building condition scores as determined by the assessment process.

Please note: a building's rank and/or score does not imply a guarantee of legislative funding.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Facility Condition Assessment Process

My school was just completed earlier this year, why would it need to be assessed right away?

§21-15-115 (b)(vi) requires a comprehensive assessment of existing buildings, including an inventory of all facility spaces. Once a building undergoes a major renovation or is a brand new building, statute requires that it receive a comprehensive assessment and space-by-space identification and measurement.

§21-15-117 (a) requires the commission to adopt the remedy that is in the best financial and educational interests of the state. Determining what is in the best financial and educational interests of the state requires a comprehensive understanding of the building portfolio as a whole as well as the individual buildings within that portfolio.

§21-15-117 (d) requires prioritization of facility needs on a state wide basis. In order to prioritize needs on a statewide basis, current replacement value (CRV) and deferred maintenance per building must be established for comparison with all other buildings.

§21-15-117 (e) requires capacity calculations when considering facility needs. Capacity analysis is based on space measurement and use identification of all spaces within a building.

Why not start assessing the school when it becomes eligible for major maintenance funding?

School Facilities Commission Rules & Regulations, Chapter 6, Section 6 requires a seven year phase-in period for major maintenance following new construction. In order to adjust the total district gross square footage throughout the phase in period, the building start date must be establish in a timely manner. Calculations occur in advance to budget requests and disbursement of already appropriated funds, both requiring up-to-date dating of buildings and measurement of space.

What systems will be assessed?

All building systems will be assessed in order to establish the CRV. Not only is each system identified, the quantities related to each system must also be calculated to determine accurate values. A building questionnaire is sent out in advance to on-site assessments to help establish the most accurate data possible.

Who will be conducting the assessment?

There are two teams that will come to every building, one to measure all spaces and identify use and the other to assess the building for condition. These are done by a third party consultant that follows specific criteria as required by the Wyoming State Construction Department.

What happens if we don't agree to have the building assessed, or don't agree with the findings?

Major maintenance payments are dependent upon officially bringing buildings into the AiM database. Without the data, disbursement of funds is not possible.

As for findings, each district is asked to accompany the on-site measurement and condition assessment teams with the most qualified personnel possible for accuracy of data collection. This is preceded by a building questionnaire and followed by a two week period for district review of data. Not only that, but training at the beginning of each statewide assessment helps districts become familiar with the process and tools used in assessing buildings, allowing them to understand the criteria used to score systems and the importance of accurate on-site observations. If a district identifies notes related to any system score that in its opinion doesn’t reflect actual conditions, it has the opportunity to provide clarifying data for the consultant to consider.

The systems being assessed are still under warranty, so isn't their performance guaranteed?

Assessments do not impact warranties, but are instead a baseline for the anticipated life-cycle of systems. In addition, if a warranty issue does arise, an unbiased opinion established within a condition assessment may help a district be proactive in identifying issues at an earlier stage.

How often will the school be assessed after this first time?

Generally, each building is assessed every four years. This can change due to commission directives, availability of funds or legislative action.

Why not let our district conduct its own assessment of buildings?

In the past, districts did partner with the School Facilities Division (SFD) and a third party consultant in assessing buildings. At the time, it was considered an effective way to establish building needs on a statewide basis. Since then the requirements for assessments have increased. Districts have been able to be educated in the process and tools used, concentrating on providing the best data possible with reasonable participation without taking on the additional burden of extensive training and calibration (literally weeks of commitment), and at the same time are able to review all data before it is finalized. The other goal that has been achieved is an unbiased opinion of system conditions by professional assessors that do this type of work for a living under the direction of an engineering firm that does work nationwide. Lastly, with consistency in third party professionalism and methodology from one assessment to the next, data is able to be analyzed and conclusions identified as to the effectiveness of the program as a whole. The SFD, Commission, legislators and governor are provided the best data possible to make informed decisions.