Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/08/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Deferred Maintenance | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 8, 2017
1:34 p.m.
1:34:07 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
ALSO PRESENT
Adam Bryan, Capital Coordinator, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Mark Davis, Director, Statewide Facilities Services
Division, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
Co-Chair Seaton addressed the meeting agenda.
^PRESENTATION: DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
1:35:22 PM
ADAM BRYAN, CAPITAL COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "State of Alaska Deferred Maintenance
Overview: House Finance Committee" dated May 8, 2017 (copy
on file).
1:36:02 PM
Mr. Bryan began on slide 2 and addressed "What is Deferred
Maintenance?":
· Maintenance that is postponed due to lack of
resources
o Replacement of building components as they
reach end of useful life such as roofs or
HVAC systems
· Deferred maintenance projects are mostly items
that entities cannot address through preventative
maintenance
o Preventative maintenance is important to
managing growth and severity of future
deferred maintenance
o Each entity manages maintenance
independently
o Legislature appropriates funding for
preventative maintenance annually -
facilities management allocations; Public
Building Fund
o Maintenance decisions must consider changing
business needs
Co-Chair Seaton asked whether there was a distinction
between maintenance and preventative maintenance.
Mr. Bryan answered that they could be interchangeable.
Deferred maintenance was something that exceeded the
department's operating budget, or it could be outside of
the expertise of the department's regular staff.
Co-Chair Seaton mentioned that Representative Pruitt had
joined the meeting.
1:38:14 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked whether deferred maintenance was
defined by those things which were beyond repair and were
causing further damage, such as in the case of a leaking
roof causing damage to the interior of a building.
Mr. Bryan replied that was a good example. Preventative
maintenance would highlight a leak in the roof. If that was
not addressed, the underlying structure may rot, and
accelerate the need to replace the roof. He suggest that as
a metric it was probably rather subjective.
1:39:16 PM
Mr. Bryan turned to slide 3 titled "How many Facilities
does the State Maintain?":
· Over 2,200 facilities
· 14 entities including University of Alaska and
Courts
· 19 million square feet of space
· Combined replacement value of $8.6B
Co-Chair Seaton asked to hold subject matter questions
until the end.
Representative Pruitt asked for verification the 2,200
facilities on slide 3 were owned.
Mr. Bryan answered in the affirmative. He advanced to
slide 4 titled "What do our Facilities Look Like?":
· Types of facilities vary by entity
o DOA manages general office space
o DOC and DHSS both manage 24 hour
facilities
o DMVA manages base facilities and statewide
armories
o DNR oversees park service cabins,
shelters, fire suppression and
preparedness shops
Mr. Bryan indicated the graph showed space owned by each
department versus the number of facilities, and said the
comparison could be made for other departments. He stated
that the mission of an agency directly related to the
amount of square footage it required to promote its
message. For example, the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT) had a series of maintenance
stations, and the University had campuses with institutions
where they taught of conducted research.
Representative Wilson wondered how DOT had the most
facilities but appeared second in the graph.
1:42:50 PM
Mr. Bryan answered the two graphs showed the number of
buildings and total square footage, respectively.
Representative Grenn asked whether airports came under DOT.
Mr. Bryan relayed DOT would be presenting the final part of
the presentation but he did not believe so.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about how many facilities, such as
sheds or storage, were under 1,000 square feet.
Mr. Bryan replied that he did not have a slide with the
data.
Co-Chair Seaton noted they could get the data later.
Mr. Bryan turned to slide 5 titled "Statewide Deferred
Maintenance Totals":
· Total of $1.84 billion, including
o Executive agencies and Courts - $1.6
billion
o School District Major Maintenance $240
million; $165 million as the State
share
· Total peaked at $2.3 billion in FY2012
o Reduced significantly through a five-
year funding plan
· Expect to trend up without consistent funding
Representative Wilson asked if it was based on bonds or on
Regional Educational Attendance Area (REAA) schools, for
which the state was largely responsible.
1:45:08 PM
Mr. Bryan responded there was a program called School
District Participation in Grant Program in statute, where
school districts could apply to the state to fund new
construction for schools, or for major maintenance or
deferred maintenance. The state would grant those
undesignated general funds (UGF), therefore they would
generally not bond for that.
Representative Wilson assumed the same group of projects
could be utilized by bonding out for communities as well.
She noted that communities had previously come [to the
state] to receive free money versus bonding. She asked what
the difference would be for communities with the ability to
bond for the programs if necessary versus REAA schools that
were without bonding authority.
Mr. Bryan would have to check with the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) for the information.
He did suggest that a school district could bond, and was
not forced to participate in the state program.
Representative Wilson asked if there was a point at which
DEED would say that a school could no longer participate
and should employ the mechanism to bond.
Mr. Bryan said he would defer to DEED and that he did not
think the department could force school districts to bond.
Representative Wilson stated they could not be forced to
bond, but the department could remove them from the list.
Co-Chair Seaton replied there was a major maintenance list
and the preceding year the school bond debt reimbursement
was around $120 million, of which $96 million was UGF. He
believed the Public School Trust was involved on the bond
debt reimbursement side. The grant portion was for those
that did not have the ability to bond as they did not have
municipal owned buildings. The schools that were in
municipalities could apply for the grants, but did not
generally receive them, and generally had to bond. The
governor had vetoed $30 million, or 25 percent, of the bond
debt reimbursement in the previous year.
Representative Wilson responded that her point was that
there were some buildings for which the state was
responsible in REAAs. The state helped out municipalities
when possible and perhaps the bonding came back. She asked
whether the state's total financial responsibility might
shift if it was only accountable for REAAs versus other
municipalities that chose to be on the list, but could
potentially have the ability to bond at some point.
1:49:11 PM
Mr. Bryan relayed that statewide deferred maintenance
totals had peaked at $2.3 billion in FY 12 and had since
been reduced significantly through a five-year investment
in deferred maintenance through the capital budget. He
turned to slide 6 titled "FY2017 Deferred Maintenance
Backlog by Entity." He indicated as long as deferred
maintenance was not funded, the backlog would continue to
increase. The pie chart on the slide showed the majority of
deferred maintenance backlog was within the University of
Alaska at 54 percent ($1 billion), and DOT was at 19
percent ($347 million). School district Major Maintenance
requests total at 13 percent ($240 million), and all other
entities totaled 14 percent ($252 million). Slide 7
included an additional chart showing the deferred
maintenance backlog. He underlined that about 75 percent of
the backlog was associated with the University and DOT.
1:50:57 PM
Mr. Bryan moved to slide 8 with a chart showing deferred
maintenance funding history, broken out by statewide
deferred maintenance and school district major maintenance.
He had data going back to FY 98 for deferred maintenance
and to FY 05 for school district major maintenance. The
blue bar indicated statewide deferred maintenance and the
red bar indicated school districts. Starting in FY 09,
there was quite a bit of money going into the two programs,
then FY 11 through FY 15 marked the period in which the
five-year program was implemented.
Co-Chair Seaton asked whether he was referring to the $100
million for five years to address deferred maintenance.
Mr. Bryan replied that the prior administration had
committed $100 million per year for five years in the
capital budget. The actual figures exceed that amount, so
the legislature had appropriated more. He pointed out that
funding was sporadic, with large swings and spikes. He
turned to slide 9 and continued to address deferred
maintenance history:
· From FY1998 to FY2010, DM funding was sporadic
and inconsistent
o Spikes in 1999 ($53M), 2006 & 2007 ($33M),
2009 ($127M)
o Low years 2000-2005 averaged $6.5M
· FY2011 began a five-year initiative to address DM
backlog
o Gov initiative of $100M annually for five
years
o Actual average funding of $123M for DM;
$18.6M for School Districts
Mr. Bryan moved on to the deferred maintenance backlog on
slide 10. There had been a rapid decline between FY 15 and
FY 16. The chart showed a decreasing overall backlog
because not all of the money appropriated was spent in that
same fiscal year. It was typical for deferred maintenance
allocations to be used over several years, as agencies
began to line up for deferred maintenance projects. There
had been a rapid increase in the size of capital budgets,
and it took time for the agencies to prepare for those
projects.
1:55:00 PM
Mr. Bryan moved to slide 11 and provided an example of the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) deferred
maintenance management:
· Annual facility condition audit
· Projects are logged on an ongoing basis in a
Capital Asset Management system
o 4 project categories
· Fire and Life Safety
· Security
· Building Integrity
· Code Requirements and Mission
Efficiency
o Priority weight applied (high, medium,
low)
o Facility Condition Index factor
o 24 hour facility factor
Mr. Bryan outlined the system for prioritizing projects. He
gave the example of DHSS which had various facilities, such
as the Alaska Psychiatric Institute, the Pioneers' Homes,
and others, which needed to avoid total shut-down for
maintenance as they ran 24 hours a day. The system gave
agencies an objective way to rank projects.
1:58:09 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked for information about the Facility
Condition Index Factor.
Mr. Bryan answered that this addressed how much deferred
maintenance was required over the value of the facility.
The index would be very high if there was a lot of deferred
maintenance built up. It gave an indication of the health
of a given facility relative to other facilities.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if the University ranked deferred
maintenance in the same way.
Mr. Bryan answered that each agency had its own way to
determine deferred maintenance needs; this was only the
example of DHSS. He moved to slide 12 and provided an
example of school district major maintenance management:
· Eligibility Requirements: six-year district plan,
fixed asset inventory system, property loss
insurance, preventative maintenance and facility
management program certified by DEED
· Applications evaluated on several factors resulting
in an overall total points rating
o Condition survey
o District rating
o Weighted average age of facility
o Previous funding through grant program
o Complete planning and design
o Effectiveness of preventative maintenance program
o Emergency conditions and seriousness of
life/safety and code conditions
Mr. Bryan remarked DEED had requirements for deferred
maintenance for school districts. Points were awarded
according to the requirements. Each school district would
have its own priority, however the department aimed at
understanding which projects were most urgent.
2:01:47 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the condition survey and
surmised each district would have to meet eligibility
requirements to qualify for putting a project forward.
Mr. Bryan replied in the affirmative. He advanced to slide
13 titled "What We've Learned":
· Pattern of funding DM backlog coincides with years
of high revenues
· The SLA 2010-2014 initiative reversed the trend of
growing DM backlog
o Gave entities predictability and confidence
· Without a consistent level of funding, entities
cannot effectively execute planned renewal
o Funding uncertainty leads to emergency only
spending
· In a constrained fiscal environment a statewide
approach provides DM attention to highest priority
needs across multiple agencies
Mr. Bryan stated that uncertainty in funding led to
emergency spending only. As the amount of funding dwindled,
the agencies showed hesitation in spending.
2:03:54 PM
Mr. Bryan noted his portion of the presentation was
concluded.
Co-chair Seaton suggested the committee hear questions
regarding the current portion of the presentation before
moving forward.
Representative Wilson asked about the overall capacity in
each of the buildings and how much of it was being
utilized.
Mr. Bryan answered that he thought that depended on each
agency's information.
Representative Wilson did not understand how the issue was
separate. She gave the example of the State Library Museum
Archives (SLAM) building and its previous location in the
State Office Building. She remarked that the previous space
seemed to be left unused. She asked which agency was
responsible for that.
2:05:20 PM
Mr. Bryan replied the administration was trying to move
towards a state-wide facilities maintenance program. He
agreed that many agencies were independent. Some facilities
were managed by Department of Administration (DOA) on
behalf of other agencies, and there was quite a bit of
overlap in the communication. Having a data set that was
all-encompassing was desired, and more was on surveys for
departments, but currently there was no aggregate system
that every department used for tracking the information.
Representative Wilson thought the House Finance Committee
should have the information. She asked if there was
information regarding leases that became state-owned
buildings, and if it was a department-by-department
consideration.
Mr. Bryan responded that leases were managed by DOA. Lease
costs had been increasing year after year and there had not
been sustainable growth. Departments had been good at
negotiating leases that did not cost as much, eliminating
leases that occupied lease space or eliminating programs
that occupied leased space. The lease space cost had been
reduced from $49.6 million to $47.1 million projected,
which put it in line with FY 12 numbers. In the DOA there
was a leasing allocation, and there would be further
reductions into FY 18 and beyond to drive down lease costs
for the state.
2:08:17 PM
Representative Wilson asked Co-chair Seaton whether the
intent was to further examine how many buildings were
needed. She asked about the former State Library space and
remarked there was a lot of room that the state was not
currently utilizing. She asked whether those spaces could
be consolidated, and asked whether they were renting.
Mr. Bryan answered that the 8th Floor of the State Office
Building had contained library space which had moved to the
SLAM facility. The DEED had a previous building which had
been demolished. The DOA was working with multiple agencies
to determine which department was the best fit for the
space. The department was attempting to reduce the need for
lease space and to cancel more leases.
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that they would ask DOA for a
report. He requested Mr. Bryan to coordinate with DOA to
get that information to the committee.
2:10:33 PM
Vice-Chair Gara noted the desire for a revenue plan. He
asked if there was a list of buildings and related costs
for which funding certain facility work would result in
more damage. He posited a capital budget to address only
those buildings which were in most serious disrepair.
Mr. Bryan replied that it was possible to put a list
together. Departments had thus far been asked to rate
buildings in terms of life, health and safety, so they had
evaluated projects with the scope only. There was a list by
agency and it could be reprioritized.
Vice-Chair Gara hoped the funds would be available. He
believed the Bethel Office of Children Services building
was condemned. He asked Mr. Bryan to speak to this.
Mr. Bryan was unaware of the situation and would speak to
DHSS.
Vice-Chair Gara stated he would like to receive an email
regarding the plan for that facility.
Mr. Bryan would follow up immediately.
Representative Pruitt referred to 2,200 owned buildings and
to leased properties. He believed there currently were
fewer people working for the state. He asked whether there
had been an evaluation of overall need for space.
Mr. Bryan asked whether he was speaking in terms of the
deferred maintenance backlog.
Representative Pruitt spoke about lowering the cost of
leasing and opening up opportunities to invest in deferred
maintenance. He asked if they had found ways to be more
efficient.
Mr. Bryan answered the cost of rent was an operating cost.
Deferred maintenance was addressed in the capital budget.
Savings did not automatically equate to an appropriation
for deferred maintenance but creates an opportunity to
lower cost or even arrive at net zero cost. There was not a
mechanism where they would see a lower lease cost that
translated to a deferred maintenance project unless it
could be used in the same budget. The department had a fund
source called Public Building Fund to make improvements to
the facilities, and departments pay for it through DOA.
There was not an upfront UGF cost in the capital budget,
but it was borne by the operating budget for the agencies
paying rent to DOA.
2:17:10 PM
Co-Chair Seaton aimed at clarifying the question. He
thought Representative Pruitt was asking about negotiating
contracts for lowering lease space and asking whether the
state was getting out of lease space and moving to
buildings which it owned.
Representative Pruitt was trying to ensure the correct
amount of space for the needs of the state. He referred to
a discussion on reduction in leases. He asked if they were
potentially looking at situations where some space may not
be needed. He wondered whether certain costs associated
with a facility could be eliminated because that facility
could be sold.
Co-Chair Seaton asked Mr. Bryan whether lease space cost
$49.6 and had been a reduction. The FY 18 had $2.8 million
less appropriated for leasing. He asked for confirmation
that those were the figures.
Mr. Bryan replied in the affirmative. He detailed it was a
combination of the two. They had gotten rid of leases and
programs and had renegotiated lease prices. Mid-lease
adjustments had also been done to lower costs. All of that
activity lead to the decrement. He stated that currently
there was overall savings of 184,000 square feet of
property.
2:20:34 PM
Representative Pruitt asked if there was such a separation
from capital budget items that there was not a way to
consider making reductions elsewhere. He explained that
when he had gone to the University of Alaska, Anchorage,
they had twice remodeled the commons. He was concerned
there was not proper management of deferred maintenance. He
asked how the facilities were being managed in the long-
term.
Mr. Bryan did not have experience working for the
University and did not want to speak for it. He did not
believe there was a "disconnect" between capital and what
was in a facility's operations budget. He underscored that
the agencies were independent from one another and that was
something the administration was attempting to address.
Representative Pruitt provided an example of a sprinkler
system that needed to be replaced. He asked about keeping
the system running even if it cost more than what was
considered preventative maintenance, and whether there was
maintenance on those systems while waiting for deferred
maintenance to come through.
Mr. Bryan answered that it was a good example. Such things
were a code violation if not maintained, and that there
were probably facilities where the deferred maintenance far
exceeded the value of buildings. Determining whether a
project was worthwhile or whether there was better value in
demolishing was a major issue for the department. He felt
that the maintenance money was being spent very well.
2:25:26 PM
Co-Chair Seaton reminded members that most of the small
maintenance was covered. However, larger maintenance costs
would have to be appropriated by the legislature. He
thought that there was still some money in the deferred
maintenance budget but that it would be discussed in the
capital budget hearings. He spoke to a comprehensive fiscal
plan. He posed the question about doing deferred
maintenance when the state had such a large deficit.
2:27:08 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the department or the
legislature decided to sell assets.
Co-Chair Seaton would get the answer.
Vice-Chair Gara did not know if it was necessary to have a
hearing on the topic. He thought it would be a good
question for the commissioner of DOA.
2:28:21 PM
Representative Wilson confirmed that she was not asking for
a separate hearing. She asked that when the legislature was
looking at deferred maintenance monies. She wondering if it
was smarter to have a lease or to pay into deferred
maintenance. She asked who was responsible for making the
call.
Co-Chair Seaton thought that consolidation and lowering
leasing costs were contributing and they would talk to DOA.
2:30:19 PM
MARK DAVIS, DIRECTOR, STATEWIDE FACILITIES SERVICES
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES (via teleconference), spoke to slide 14 related
to statewide facilities maintenance:
Timeline:
2015 - EFMAC* Creation & Recommendations
2016 - State Facilities Council Formed, Centralization
Analysis Recommendation & Approval
2017 - Determination of lead agency for Centralized
Facilities Services
· Advantages to centralized operations and
maintenance of state facilities
o Enterprise approach
o One lead agency (DOT&PF)
o Economies of scale
o Commonality of processes, procedures
o Consolidate contracts
o Juneau Pilot - four waves thru 2017
(approximately 20 buildings) followed by
expansion statewide
Mr. Davis relayed that the division was working towards
centralizing facilities maintenance across most of the
departments. The effort had begun in 2017 with the EFMAC
[Executive Facilities Maintenance Advisory Committee]. This
developed into a facilities council and subcommittees. The
body had done a great deal of work towards analyzing the
potential advantage to centralizing maintenance facilities
across the state. It was determined that DOT would be the
central agency for that project, beginning with a pilot
program involving around 20 buildings around Juneau. He
thought taking an enterprise approach, finding economies of
scale, consolidating contracts were part of the first wave
of the Juneau pilot, the governance body would be consulted
for key policy decisions.
2:33:14 PM
Mr. Davis noted that the scope of the effort did not
include leasing activity, which remained with DOA. The
issue of consolidating and perhaps closing and no longer
renting was also outside of the project's scope.
Mr. Davis advanced to slide 15 titled "Opportunities Going
Forward":
· Opportunity to comprehensively plan
recapitalization of State buildings
· Starts with inspections to develop a Facilities
Condition Index (FCI)
o Provide holistic view of all state building
assets
o Baseline health of our assets; prioritize
deferred maintenance needs
o Analyze backlog of existing deferred
maintenance items in relation to actual needs
· Develop a framework built on best practices:
processes, procedures; provide data/metrics to
measure progress
· Implement a common Computerized Maintenance
Management System
· Assess risk and prioritize work
· Strive for a systematic funding program for major
maintenance and system life cycle replacement-
ensure consistency, predictability
Mr. Davis and spoke to the Facilities Condition Index. This
element would be very important in determining the
condition of buildings across the state. He was not aware
of another department that had done that. The department
was aimed at understanding where the problem set was and
how to prioritize funding. Going forward it would be used
to learn lessons, adjust procedures, and increase
efficiency.
2:35:18 PM
Mr. Davis addressed slide 16 and provided best in class
state examples:
· Utah - Division of Facilities Construction and
Management
o Provides centralized facilities related
services - maintenance, operations, design and
construction to 200 plus buildings.
o Facilities Conditions Indices (FCIs) renewed
every 5 years per facility.
o A computerized maintenance management system
used to manage their portfolio, reactive and
preventative maintenance and real estate
management.
o Deferred maintenance funding appropriated into
the annual budget as percentage of the value of
all state facilities
o Key Performance Indicators are measured - FCIs,
maintenance costs per sq. ft.
· Texas has benchmarked success as well
Mr. Davis provided Utah as an example. The state had used
consolidated maintenance since the mid-1980s. Most of the
state's policies in this area were in statute. Deferred
maintenance funding was the percentage of the value of the
property and was funded annually and therefore predictable.
He turned to slide 17 titled "The Long View."
· Build on Successes of Juneau Pilot
· Advance in waves to bring in all state facilities
· Results-based reporting to investors,
stakeholders, public
· Continuous improvement culture
· Best stewardship of public funds rooted in
consistency and predictability
Mr. Davis indicated they were looking to build on the
successes of the Juneau pilot. The aim was to advance in
waves across the state. A key component was putting all of
the maintenance in one database. Some departments did not
have a maintenance management system. Others had inadequate
systems. For the state to implement the concept, the
computerized management system would be necessary.
2:37:49 PM
Co-Chair Seaton referred to a question about when a
facility was no longer worth the major maintenance. He
asked if there was a cutoff where the facility index says
to abandon maintenance.
Mr. Davis answered that once the index was completed, a
decision like that would be brought before the facilities
council and perhaps before EFMAC for review. It would
require a lot of planning to move whatever function was in
a given building and to ensure there was available capital
funding.
Co-Chair Seaton pointed to the example related to Utah on
slide 16. He asked whether, if there was not some dedicated
funding going forward due to deficits, the system gave
information but did not actually put the state on a pathway
to getting the repairs done.
Mr. Davis believed that once operations commenced, they
would be able to determine the need. He detailed that 2,000
or so buildings would not require maintenance, and storage
sheds or other small buildings that would not have
significant deferred maintenance. He thought there may be
old buildings for which the department was underestimating
the amount of deferred maintenance required. He was not
currently able to answer the amount of deferred maintenance
that the department needed. It would be managed by priority
based on the building condition.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if there was a list of buildings that
were under 1,000 square feet and related cost estimates.
2:42:00 PM
Mr. Davis did not believe the list had been compiled, but
the department would do so and would follow up.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if there were costs associated with
the Juneau pilot project.
Mr. Davis answered the primary cost was the computerized
maintenance program, with estimates of $350,000 to
$400,000. The department was currently in the request for
proposal and funding stage.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the amount was the software and
implementation component.
Mr. Davis replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Gara asked whether there buildings that needed
to be maintained and the current condition was costing more
and asked whether there was an assessment of damage
currently occurring.
Mr. Davis replied that he could not answer the question.
They were at the beginning of implementing the program,
initially with DOA and DOT. He imagined there could be some
buildings in that category but could not currently answer.
2:44:41 PM
Co-Chair Seaton referred to slide 18 and asked if the
governor's 10-year plan was looking at the pilot program or
to the state-wide deferred maintenance plan.
Mr. Bryan replied that slide 18 was not related to Mr.
Davis's portion. He clarified that there was an early
estimate of $70 million to $90 million between school major
maintenance and entity deferred maintenance. It was
independent of statewide facility maintenance.
Co-Chair Seaton observed it was obvious there was a
deferred maintenance problem in Alaska. There were
considerations that needed to be made and if the budget
deficit continued there would not be funding for deferred
maintenance.
Co-Chair Seaton addressed the schedule for the following
day.
Representative Wilson asked which bills the committee was
hearing public comment on.
Co-Chair Seaton noted that if the bill had not been heard
there would not be public comment.
Representative Wilson noted it was not listed. She
requested the information for the entire week.
ADJOURNMENT
2:49:00 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Deferred Maintenance Overview HFIN 5.8.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/8/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN Fiscal Policy |
| OMB Response- House Finance Committee on Deferred Maintenance.pdf |
HFIN 5/8/2017 1:30:00 PM |