Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/09/2022 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB33 | |
| Presentation: Deferred Maintenance - Office of Management and Budget, University of Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 9, 2022
9:04 a.m.
9:04:19 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Erin Shine, Staff, Senator Click Bishop; Neil Steininger,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the
Governor; Chad Hutchison, Director of State Relations,
University of Alaska.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Melanie Arnolds, Director, Division of Facilities Services,
Department of Transportation; Chistopher Hodgin,
Engineer/Architect, Department of Transportation,
Anchorage; Alesia Kruckenberg, Director of Planning and
Budget, University of Alaska.
SUMMARY
SB 33 SEAFOOD PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
CSSB 33 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
four "do pass" recommendations, and three "no
recommendation" recommendations and with one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of
Revenue.
PRESENTATION: DEFERRED MAINTENANCE - OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
and BUDGET, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
SENATE BILL NO. 33
"An Act relating to a seafood product development tax
credit; providing for an effective date by repealing
secs. 32 and 35, ch. 61, SLA 2014; and providing for
an effective date."
9:04:56 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that the committee was hearing SB
33 for the third time.
Senator von Imhof MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 33, Work Draft 32-LS0308\N (Nauman,
2/7/22).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
9:05:34 AM
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, discussed a // She
explained that the Committee Substitute would create a new
set of statutes; AS 43.75.037, the Fisheries Product
Development Tax Credit, modeled after the repealed Salmon
and Herring Product Development Tax Credit. She said that
in the CS, eligible fish were defined as Salmon, Herring,
Pollock, Pacific Cod, and Sable fish. She relayed that the
effective date was not longer retroactive, but has an
immediate effective date, and the sunset date of the tax
credit was January 1, 2027. An amendment had been
incorporated into the current version that would make the
number of recipients, in the total amount of tax credit
claimed for each type of eligible fish, a matter of public
record.
Ms. Shine explained that the changes could be found, with
the inclusion of Sections 1, 2, 3, and 8, and with
subsection (J) in Section 4, with conforming changes in
Sections 6 and 9.
9:06:44 AM
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. The CS for SB 33 was
ADOPTED.
Senator Wilson discussed a new fiscal note from Department
of Revenue, OMB 2476. He read from the analysis:
Revenue Impact
From fiscal years (FY) 2017-2020, the annual value of
the now expired Salmon and Herring Production
Development Tax Credit ranged from $2.3 million to
$4.4 million. This fiscal note provides estimated
revenue impacts for creating a new tax credit for
property used to perform value-added functions for
salmon, herring, pollock, Pacific cod, and sablefish
with an immediate effective date.
9:07:38 AM
Senator von Imhof MOVED to report CSSB 33 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 33 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with four "do
pass" recommendations, and three "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Revenue.
9:08:08 AM
AT EASE
9:10:42 AM
RECONVENED
^PRESENTATION: DEFERRED MAINTENANCE - OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
and BUDGET, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
9:10:46 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the University of Alaska (UA) would both
provide presentations.
9:11:09 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wanted to address a question or concern
about an appropriation that had been made to the Voice of
the Arctic. He had looked at the grant application, which
did not match the request presented to the committee. He
thought there was a need for some more backup to clarify
the matter. He did not believe that any funds had been
released on the $1 million appropriation.
9:12:53 AM
Co-Chair Bishop affirmed that as of the previous day no
funds had been expended.
9:13:06 AM
NEIL STEININGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, discussed a presentation entitled
"State of Alaska Office of Management and Budget Deferred
Maintenance Senate Finance Committee February 9, 2022,"
(copy on file). He explained that he would be covering the
first portion of the presentation, after which Melanie
Arnolds, Director, Division of Facilities Services,
Department of Transportation would provide technical
information. Her support staff, Chistopher Hodgin,
Engineer/Architect, Department of Transportation,
Anchorage, would also be available.
Co-Chair Bishop referenced an overview from OMB and robust
debate on deferred maintenance from a meeting the previous
Friday.
Co-Chair Bishop understood that the transition of deferred
maintenance under OMB had begun under the Walker
Administration.
Mr. Steininger replied in the affirmative.
9:15:06 AM
Mr. Steininger looked at slide 2, " Deferred Maintenance
Overview":
Deferred maintenance is maintenance or repair projects
that have been delayed or postponed due to lack of
funds within an entity's normal operating budget
cycle.
State of Alaska property portfolio:
2,400+ facilities (includes University)
? 20 million square feet of space
? 14 State Agencies
? Type varies by Agency
Mr. Steininger expanded that the 2,400+ facilities
accounted for approximately 20 million square feet of
space, spread across 14 state agencies. He thought it was
important to note that every agency had different types of
buildings from large buildings to remote cabins, with a
large diversity of function and purpose.
9:17:04 AM
Senator Wilson asked about the Public Building Fund and
wondered how many facilities were included under the fund.
Mr. Steininger thought generally office buildings were part
of the fund. Agencies that had space in the buildings paid
a lease payment based on square footage that covered
depreciation and maintenance on the buildings.
9:18:16 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether there was an appropriation
for FY23 from the Public Building Fund.
Mr. Steininger replied that there was an appropriation in
the Operating Budget, but there was no additional Capital
Budget maintenance appropriation in the current governors
budget proposal. He said that there was existing Capital
Budget authority.
Co-Chair Bishop requested the balance of the remaining
capital authority.
9:18:49 AM
Mr. Steininger spoke to slide 3, "Funding Recommendations
and Targets":
There is no one definitive rule on the level of
preventive maintenance necessary to avoid deferred
maintenance, but a 2012 National Research Council
publication references a range of 2-4% of replacement
cost value
FY2020 replacement cost value (excluding University):
$7,678,370.1
1% = $76.8 million
2% = $153.6 million
4% = $307.1 million
Mr. Steininger noted that the replacement cost value number
was from FY21, rather than FY20 as indicated on the slide.
9:20:06 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the state was structured
in a way to maximize federal dollars for deferred
maintenance.
Mr. Steininger affirmed that the state was using the funds,
in the case of Public Building Funds, very well. He thought
the system was well structured for the needs of public
buildings. He noted that some other structures were more
state funded in their maintenance.
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether PBF was the acronym for
Public Building Fund.
Mr. Steininger replied in the affirmative.
9:21:47 AM
Senator Wielechowski thought an audit or further
investigation could help in the effort to maximize federal
funds.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether the State Office Building was
under the Public Building Fund.
Mr. Steininger answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Bishop commented that the fa?ade of the building
was quite dirty.
9:22:46 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether there was anything that
could be done legislatively to ensure the federal dollars
were being maximized.
Mr. Steininger said that ensuring an accurate reflection of
the capture of federal funds for operating maintenance was
priority. He said that capturing the numbers go harder with
the deferred maintenance list and the use of unrestricted
general fund. He used the example of the Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs, which received significant
federal dollars that the state could easily capture. The
state also received considerable federal funds for the
Veterans Pioneer Home in Palmer. He thought it was harder
to track the usage for smaller facilities. He said that it
was an issue of constant vigilance.
9:24:30 AM
Mr. Steininger referenced slide 4, "Governor's Budget
Maintenance Funding," which listed the maintenance funding
requests by department, amount, and funding source:
Capital Budget FY2023 Governor
Natural Resources
$1,418.0 (in thousands)
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund
(CSLERF)
Fish and Game
$500.0 (in thousands)
Undesignated General Fund (UGF)
Courts
$3,820.0
Alaska Capital Income Fund
Governor
$23,880.0
Alaska Capital Income Fund
Operating Budget FY2023 Governor Maintenance and
Operating (M&O) Funding
All Agencies
$76,389.5
Various
Total - $106,007.5
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether it was safe to say that it
was sometimes a challenge for agencies, which could use
more of their M&O for the capital side.
Mr. Steininger thought there was a bit of a challenging in
ensuring that operating funds maintenance was working in
tandem with capital funding. He thought that the
consolidation into the Division of Facilities Services,
under the prior administration, had been to get a handle on
the management of funds across all agencies.
9:27:05 AM
Senator von Imhof referenced Mr. Steininger's assertion
that the $106 million was on the lower end, with the 1 to 4
percent range. She asked whether there was potential for
some of the deferred maintenance project to become bigger
concerns.
Mr. Steininger thought Senator von Imhof's question was a
speculative one. He thought it was important to note that
the speculative ranges were a best guess and were not
perfect. He reiterated that there was wide diversity in the
types of facilities the state owned. He did not know
whether there was a perfect level. He said that a more
remote facility was reliant on individuals working at that
facility to perform maintenance that was outside of their
usual job description. He did not believe that a perfect
level of funding could be defined.
9:29:12 AM
Co-Chair Bishop dovetailed on Senator von Imhof's comment.
He thought the state was barley treading water in the area
of deferred maintenance.
Senator von Imhof pondered the concept of getting ahead on
deferred maintenance versus treading water. She thought
that a more holistic approach could be taken. She thought
that the one percent might work for a while but would not
work forever. She was concerned whether OMB had
contemplated the policy ramifications of paying $106
million towards deferred maintenance versus $1.6 billion
towards a cash liquidation. She wondered about the policy
consequences of using money for dividend payouts rather
than for the deferred maintenance of the state.
Mr. Steininger considered the two issues to be separate
policy considerations. He suggested the payment of the
dividend was not something that the administration
considered an issue of policy prioritization internal to
the administration. He contended that the administration
believed that the payout was not a policy item to be
weighed against other concerns but was a default state to
pay Alaskans first. He continued that deferred maintenance
had to compete against other operating and capital
priorities. He said that OMB worked to cobble together
different funds sources. He mentioned previous
reappropriations of lapsing capital projects leveraged to
fund projects.
9:33:06 AM
Senator von Imhof appreciated Mr. Steininger's explanation
of the administration's philosophy. She thought all
spending all mattered and came out of the general fund. She
pondered that if a household paid itself first, while
ignoring a leaky roof or a broken furnace, it could result
in dire consequences. She hoped that the committee looked
at increasing the deferred maintenance so that the problem
did not become worse.
9:34:13 AM
Mr. Steininger turned to slide 5, "Backlog $703.891.3
(excluding University)," which showed a bar graph
illustrating the amount of deferred maintenance backlog
(excluding University). He cited a backlog of $704 million,
the bulk of which was for the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOT&PF). He related that very
recently the administration had worked to transfer the PBF
from DOA to DOT, as a final phase of the consolidation of
facilities maintenance. He noted the Department of
Corrections was very facilities-heavy and the Department of
health and Social Services operated many 24-hour
facilities.
9:35:43 AM
Mr. Steininger considered slide 6, "Statewide Funding
Approach":
Allocation process
• OMB facilitates the collection of agency deferred
maintenance lists
• State Facilities Council reviews and prioritizes
deferred maintenance projects across executive
branch agencies
• Facilities Council deferred maintenance workshops
anticipated February through May, with goal of
Statewide prioritized list to OMB May 2022
• Projects to be prioritized based on combination
of significant factors including facility
importance, building system, and urgency to
create a
*Project Index Value (PIV).
9:37:32 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked for an example of the department
representatives on the council.
Mr. Steininger thought that it could be a facilities
manager, division director, and representatives from large
facilities.
9:38:32 AM
Senator Wilson asked about the deferred maintenance dollar
amount for the Court System.
Mr. Steiniger said he would provide the information.
9:39:12 AM
Mr. Steininger deferred to DOT to discuss slide 7, "Project
Ranking Formula":
? Project prioritization a combination of the below to
create a Project Index Value (PIV):
PIV = (MAI) x (System Factor) x (Need)
• MAI - Mission Alignment Index, alignment of
facility to an Agency's mission
• System Factor - Scale related to various building
systems and their impact on building
• Need - The urgency and criticality for
replacement
? If known, other attributes are also considered such
as anticipated return on investments, any matching
funds, or eligibility as a financed energy savings
performance project
9:40:52 AM
Ms. Arnolds discussed slide 7.
MELANIE ARNOLDS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FACILITIES SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (via teleconference), noted
that she had been in her position for three months. She
noted that she was not new to the department, only the
position.
9:42:00 AM
Ms. Arnolds highlighted slide 8, "Mission Alignment Index":
? Mission Alignment Index (MAI) identifies the
relative importance of a facility in relation to an
agency's primary mission. Besides how critical the
facility is to the agency mission
it considers:
• How capable is it to deliver services
• How utilized is it, how many people, citizens or
state services does it impact
• Availability of other facility options at that
location
? The most critical facilities of an agency are
directly aligned with the agency's purpose to
exist
• Amongst multiple critical facilities within in an
agency, there are still varying degrees
? Allows better risk management to programs, and
guides investment and divestiture
decisions
? Determined by the agency. Periodically revisited.
Ms. Arnolds looked at slide 9, "Mission Alignment Index
Examples":
? Critical:
? The Agency cannot meet its mission without this
facility. There are no viable workarounds
? Important:
? Would impact the Agency's mission if
unavailable.
Possible workarounds
? Supportive:
? Would possibly impact the Agency's mission if
unavailable, but other options available
? Other / Non Mission Critical:
? Would not have an effect on the Agency's
mission if unavailable
Index Scale
0.75 0.9
0.5 0.74
0.25 0.49
0.0 - 0.24
Facility
Key Maintenance Station, Correctional Center,
Hangar, School, etc.
Certain Office Buildings
Certain Warehouses or Storage Buildings
9:44:24 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the pandemic had changed
the method for evaluation of index scales.
Ms. Arnolds replied in the affirmative. She discussed the
revelation that there were many functions that could be
carried out outside of office buildings. She could not
speak to the degree of change for each agency.
9:46:09 AM
Ms. Arnolds addressed slide 10, "Systems and Needs
Examples":
? Life, Health, Safety, Structure
? Sprinkler, Fire Alarm, Structural,
? Including Life, Health, Safety issues caused by
envelope,
mechanical, electrical, or other system failures
System Factor
0.75 1.0
Need
5 Critical
-Corrects critical life safety or code
hazard
-Imminent failure, requires immediate
action to return facility to normal
operations
? Envelope and Shell
? Roof, Exterior Walls and Windows
System Factor
0.5 0.74
? Mechanical, Electrical, Conveying, Process
? HVAC, Plumbing, Power, Lighting, Elevators,
Escalators,
industry specific systems
System Factor
0.5 0.74
Need
4 Important, not yet critical
-Requires action within next 5 years to
stop intermittent interruptions
-Corrects deterioration or potential
safety hazards
? Interior, exterior grounds, other
? Interior Doors, Walls, Floors, Finishes
System Factor
0.25 0.49
Need
3 Necessary
-Require appropriate attention to
preclude deterioration or potential downtime
Co-Chair Bishop asked where ADA compliance fell in the
systems.
Ms. Arnolds thought that it would fall under the top bullet
point. She offered to get back to the committee with more
information.
9:49:10 AM
Ms. Arnolds advanced to slide 11, " Examples From Last
Prioritization Cycle":
• Mission Alignment Index Determined by the
owning department. In this example, each is a
critical building essential to serving the
mission of the respective department.
• System Factor Average of the inputs from each
member of the Facilities Council
• Need Average of the inputs from each member
of the Facilities Council
• Project Index Value Calculated and ranked for
over 100 projects from the last ranking cycle
Final prioritized list was reviewed and approved by
Facilities Council, then shared with OMB to inform
the recommended deferred maintenance allocation.
Ms. Arnolds relayed that the examples were real and
critical and included:
• Ketchikan Pioneer Home - Domestic Water Supply Lines
Replacement
• Palmer Highway SEF Maintenance Station Palmer
Highways/SEF Maintenance Station Trench Drain &
Oil/Water Separator
9:52:14 AM
Senator Wilson thought in the previous year the Facilities
Council was set to conduct a workshop to produce a
statewide list and wondered whether a list could be
provided to the committee.
Ms. Arnolds explained that that the list was still in
progress; the council was planning on meeting between now
and May, after which the list would be available.
Mr. Steininger interjected that the lists from previous
years could be provided to the committee.
Senator Wilson asked how conflict between the Facility
Council and OMB would be resolved.
Ms. Arnolds deferred to Christopher Hodgin.
9:53:36 AM
CHISTOPHER HODGIN, ENGINEER/ARCHITECT, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), explained
that disagreements were resolved through robust
methodological discussion.
9:54:54 AM
Ms. Arnolds looked at slide 12, "Statewide Management
Approach":
Division of Facilities Services' (DFS) mission is to
deliver, improve, and maintain safe and reliable
facilities across Alaska. This work encompasses all
aspects of construction through maintenance during a
facility's life cycle. This centralization provides
consistency, expertise, care, and application of state
rules to manage integral real property assets.
DFS' administrative costs and Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities overhead are
billed to agencies based on a federally-approved
indirect cost allocation plan rate for FY2022 this
rate is 9.28%.
9:56:11 AM
Senator Wilson asked whether the purchase of the Alaska
Incident Management System Guide (AIMS) had benefitted the
state.
Ms. Arnolds stated that the department had begun uploading
the data into the system but that the program had not been
maximized. She said that the system would give the state
the capability to have the electronic management tools to
manage the assets and prioritizations.
9:58:03 AM
Senator Wilson wondered when the system was purchased, how
much it cost, and when it would be completed.
Co-Chair Bishop asked when the system would be fully
operational.
Ms. Arnolds reminded the committee that she was only three
months into her position and noted that there had been a
great deal of staff rotation in the division. She agreed to
follow up on a completion date. She said that the cost of
the systems was shared by the agencies.
9:59:28 AM
Co-Chair Bishop understood that she did not know when the
system would be fully deployed.
Ms. Arnolds affirmed that the department did not have a
timeline as to when data would be fully uploaded to the
system.
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether it could be in one year.
Ms. Arnolds replied that certain agencies could be fully
uploaded in a year.
Senator Wilson expressed disappointment that the system was
not already fully functional.
10:00:47 AM
Mr. Steininger showed slide 14, " Deferred Maintenance:
State Owned Facilities, which showed a bar graph
illustrating the number of facilities by agency, inclusive
of the UA system.
Mr. Steininger referenced slide 15, " Deferred Maintenance:
Facility Types, which showed a bar graph illustrating the
total square feet by agency. He noted that while the UA
system made up much of the backlog because they had the
largest facilities.
considered slide 16, " Deferred Maintenance: Known Disposed
Assets":
? Department of Health and Social Services Ketchikan
Youth Center Returned to the City
? Department of Health and Social Services Nome Youth
Facility in-progress
? Department of Fish and Game Birch Lake Land Parcel
? Department of Natural Resources Sold Facility
Associated with the Agriculture Revolving Loan
Fund
? Department of Military and Veterans Affairs Divested
15 Army National Guard Facilities with
50 Others Planned or In Progress
? Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Sold Two Facilities from Kulis Anchorage
? University of Alaska Reduced Space through Property
Sales, Elimination of Leases, and
Demolition
Co-Chair Bishop was curious whether the facility under the
fourth bullet was the meat packing plant in Palmer.
Mr. Steininger said he would get back to the committee.
10:03:29 AM
AT EASE
10:04:13 AM
RECONVENED
CHAD HUTCHISON, DIRECTOR OF STATE RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA, noted that he had several lifelines online for
specific questions.
Mr. Hutchison discussed the presentation University of
Alaska - For Alaska - Senate Finance Committee - February
9, 2022 UA - Deferred Maintenance. He noted the $50.0
million request by the Board of Regents for facilities
Deferred Maintenance/Renewal & Repurposing.
Mr. Hutchison referenced a one-page document entitled "FY
22 Priority Deferred Maintenance Projects and Renewal and
Repurposing" (copy on file). He shared that the list
included the entire deferred maintenance request for this
year for easy reference.
Mr. Hutchison turned to slide 4, Gov Proposed FY23 Capital
Budget:
• UAF Bartlett Hall and Moore Hall Modernization
and Renewal: $18.7M (G.O. Bond funds)
• Student Information Technology Systems: $20.0M
(SoA Coronavirus Capital Projects federal funds)
• Seward Marine Center Research Vessel (Sikuliaq)
Infrastructure: $94.4M (UAF CFOS NSF federal
funding authority)
Mr. Hutchison noted that the federal Coronavirus funds were
not guaranteed.
10:08:11 AM
Co-Chair Bishop noted that the legislature had added
funding to last years budget for Bartlett and Moore Hall,
which Governor Dunleavy had subsequently vetoed.
Mr. Hutchison appreciated that fact. He said that many of
the currently requests would look familiar to the
committee.
10:09:01 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether there were other
projects the governor had vetoed and queried the rationale
for the vetoes.
Mr. Hutchison could not speak for the governor. He said
that he supported the actions of the legislature, and that
the UA appreciated the recognition of the legislature of
the real need faced by the UA system.
10:09:36 AM
Senator Olson asked whether there was a reason that the
governor had vetoed the deferred maintenance projects.
Mr. Hutchison reiterated that he did not know the
governors reasoning. He emphasized that the University
faced a real need when it came to deferred maintenance
funding.
10:10:28 AM
Senator Wielechowski was curious as to why critical
projects were vetoed. He thought if critical life and
safety issues were being vetoed there must be a good
reason.
Mr. Steininger stated the administration had initially
supported the funding of the projects as part of the G.O.
Bond package and when the funding was changed to UGF the
project was no longer part of the administrations
financing plan for state capital projects. He thought that
the veto did not show lack of support for the project
itself, rather the way that it was funded. He noted that
projects were put forth again this year by the
administration in the G.O. Bond package in the hope of
maximizing low interest rates for financing projects.
Co-Chair Bishop noted that the voters would have to approve
the G.O Bond.
10:12:24 AM
Senator von Imhof understood that the administration would
rather go into debt to pay for the projects rather than pay
cash and not incur debt.
Mr. Steininger responded that the State Debt Manager could
be made available to the committee to discuss the matter.
He said that the bond package was advantageous at current
interest levels and would be reasonable for the state to
carry and pay down overtime.
10:13:30 AM
Senator von Imhof thought there was a philosophical
difference between the administration and the legislature.
She thought that the interest rates could go up and the
arbitrage would shrink. She believed that projects that
were bonded were expected to generate revenue for the
state, which was how the debt was repaid. She expressed
concern with bonds being used for deferred maintenance
projects.
10:14:30 AM
Senator Wielechowski described 60-year-old buildings in the
University system that had plumbing, heating, ventilation,
lighting, and code compliance issues. He spoke to the
request detail. He lamented that the governor would veto
projects for philosophical funding reasons, over the health
and safety of Alaskans.
Mr. Steininger recounted that the primary consideration at
the time of the vetoes had been whether the project would
be better supported through a bond package rather than
limited general fund resources. He recognized that the
University was in need, which was why the project was in
the FY23 G.O. Bond package.
10:16:25 AM
Co-Chair Bishop assured Mr. Steininger that the committee
would be considering the projects and their funding
sources.
10:16:30 AM
Senator Wielechowski understood that if the legislature
funded the projects with general funds the governor would
veto the items.
Mr. Steininger replied in the negative. He said that those
were the factors from the previous year, and the
administration currently supported funding the projects
through bonds, but that he could not say whether the
governor would veto a general fund request.
10:17:22 AM
Mr. Hutchison moved to slide 3, "Capital Budget DM/R&R
Funding History - Unrestricted General Funds & Backlog (in
millions of $)," which was approximately $1.4 million.
10:18:31 AM
Senator Wilson went back to slide 2. He asked why the
University was looking to use federal funds for IT system
upgrades rather than life safety issues.
Mr. Hutchison relayed that the federal funds had to be
connected to the Coronavirus period. He said that the board
had also looked at general funds. He noted that it was a
process and the University awaited definitive answers from
the U.S. Department of Treasury on how federal dollars
could be spent in the future.
10:20:11 AM
Mr. Hutchison went back to slide 3. He invited Alesia
Kruckenberg to speak.
10:20:25 AM
ALESIA KRUCKENBERG, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUDGET,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA (via teleconference), relayed that the
$5 million of money allocated to the governors office for
distribution and was awarded to the University for their
most critical deferred maintenance projects.
Co-Chair Bishop asked how much the University bonded for in
2012.
Mr. Hutchison interjected approximately $50 million.
Co-Chair Bishop noted that the University had taken it upon
itself to bond for the projects at that time. He thought
that cuts in the University budget had begun to affect
operating cost and he advocated for a base increase.
Mr. Hutchison noted that further detail on the $5 million
had been submitted to member's offices.
10:21:51 AM
Mr. Hutchison addressed slide 4, "Gov Proposed FY23 Capital
Budget":
? UAF Bartlett Hall and Moore Hall Modernization
and Renewal: $18.7M (G.O. Bond funds)
? Student Information Technology Systems: $20.0M
(SoA Coronavirus Capital Projects federal funds)
? Seward Marine Center Research Vessel (Sikuliaq)
Infrastructure: $94.4M (UAF CFOS NSF federal
funding authority)
10:22:46 AM
Mr. Hutchison addressed slide 5, " FY23 Gov Amend $50M
DM/R&R (top 5 $33m)
1. UAF Fairbanks Campus Building Interior & Systems
Renewal $20,500.0
Modernize both residence halls' (Bartlett & Moore)
restrooms, laundry facilities and associated
sanitation infrastructure by replacing the plumbing
systems and reconfiguring the restrooms to comply with
current building codes, ADA standards and modern
student resident expectations; replace the entire
Bunnell elevator unit with a modern elevator within
the same structural shaft; renovate one to two
restrooms within each Duckering, Elvey, and Bunnell
buildings with new fixtures, finishes, partitions,
lighting, etc.
2. UAA Campus Building Interior & Systems Renewal
$11,171.0
Replace failing piping, inadequate electrical systems,
inefficient lighting, boilers, fans, deficient
variable air volume (vav) boxes and upgrade building
automation system controls. This energy savings
performance project will incorporate mechanical and
electrical system improvements to three critical
facilities, the Professional Studies Building (PSB),
the Wendy Williamson Auditorium (WWA), and the Social
Sciences Building (SSB).
3. UAS Deck Mansards Replacement Paul Building $100.0
Replace the siding/roofing material with a Bermuda
metal material that is more resistant to constant
rain.
4. UAA Consortium Library and Arcade & Bridge Lounge
Roof Replacement $900.0
This project will demolish the existing roof system,
increase parapet cap height, upgrade structural
components for seismic restraint, replace roof decking
as required and install a new roofing system.
5. UAF Moore-Bartlett-Skarland Residence Exterior
Lighting $325.0
The project will replace inadequate exterior lighting
with new, energy efficient LED fixtures on all four
sides of the building.
10:23:24 AM
Mr. Hutchison showed slide 6, " FY23 Gov Amend $50M DM/R&R
continued," which showed a table of projects continued:
6. UAA Campus Security & Safety (replace
exterior/interior doors) $429.0
7. UAF Safety & Regulatory Compliance (renew HVAC and
hydronic system, pool refurbishment, fire alarms, door
replacement) $7,775.0
8. UAS Safety Improvements and Regulatory Compliance
(fix or replace retractable bollards, emergency exit
canopies and notification improvements) $1,266.0
9. UAA Community Campus HVAC Healthy Building Upgrades
$3,100.0
10. UAF Rural and Community Campus Renewal (fire rated
corridor egress & alarms, electrical distribution,
fuel tank repair/replace) $2,200.0
11. UAS Exterior Infrastructure (fuel tank
replacement, covered stairways, sidewalk repairs &
drainage improvements) $1,157.0
12. UAS Interior Systems (elevator and HVAC
replacement) $577.0
13. UAF Community and Technical College Renewal (CTC)
(renovate restrooms) $300.0
14. UASO Replace Emergency Egress Lighting Power
Supply (Butrovich) $200.0
Mr. Hutchison said that more detailed descriptions were
available.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
10:24:11 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:24 a.m.