Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
03/21/2025 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 | |
| HB54 | |
| Presentation: Deferred Maintenance, School Major Maintenance and New School Construction List | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations and other appropriations; making
reappropriations; making appropriations to capitalize
funds; and providing for an effective date."
1:36:06 PM
^PRESENTATION: DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, SCHOOL MAJOR
MAINTENANCE AND NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION LIST
1:36:13 PM
MICHAEL BUTIKOFER, FACILITIES MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, introduced himself.
LORI WEED, SCHOOL FINANCE MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, provided a PowerPoint presentation
titled "Capital Needs for School Facilities," dated March
21, 2025 (copy on file). She began on slide 2 with the
Department of Education and Early Development's (DEED)
mission, vision, and purpose. The department's mission was
"an excellent education for every student every day." The
purpose of the department was to provide information,
resources, and leadership to support an excellent education
for every student every day. She moved to slide 3 and
stated that a school facility was instrumental in providing
education, meeting Alaska's strategic priorities for
education challenge, particularly retaining and attracting
effective educational professionals, and improving the
safety and well-being of students by providing a
comfortable and safe place to go to school.
Ms. Weed moved to current funding mechanisms on slide 4.
She read from prepared remarks:
The current funding mechanisms in statute, Title 14.11
provide for the department to oversee programs for the
construction, rehabilitation, and improvement of
schools and education related facilities. There are
two primary grant funds: the School Construction Grant
Fund established in 1990 and the Major Maintenance
Grant Fund established in 1993. This structure
simplified the appropriation allocation system that
was based on multiple different funding lists, one for
each of the project categories currently identified in
the statute. All grant projects funded under this
chapter require a participating share from the
district: 2 percent for the Regional Educational
Attendance Areas (REAA) and between 5 and 35 percent
for municipal school districts.
The Regional Educational Attendance Area and Small
Municipal School District School Fund, which we
typically shorten to REAA Fund, was created in 2010 as
a result of the Kasayulie settlement as a method of
providing more equity in capital funding between rural
and urban schools. Primarily, those who can
participate in school bond debt reimbursement and
those who could not. Originally, specific to REAAs for
school construction funding, it was expanded to
include small municipalities in 2013, and in 2018 the
purpose was expanded to include major maintenance.
This fund is based on a calculation indexed to the
amount of the state's school bond debt reimbursement
modified by a ratio of municipal schools to the total
statewide and applied a constant factor of 0.244.
1:39:28 PM
Co-Chair Schrage acknowledged Representatives Bill Elam and
Julie Coulombe in the room.
Ms. Weed continued addressing current funding mechanisms on
slide 4 with prepared remarks:
The REAA fund has been a great asset to the department
in the past decade. It has allowed us to forecast
anticipated funding, which has allowed the department
to keep projects moving on the construction list. In
particular, by enabling us to fund the design phases
of a large school construction project in one year,
knowing that the balance of funding will be sufficient
for the construction phase in the following year. This
year, the fund capitalization in the operating budget
is about $22.9 million.
The school bond debt reimbursement program is open to
all cities and boroughs that operate school districts.
Applications for debt reimbursement projects may be
received at any time a debt reimbursement program
authorization is open. Because of the open nature of
the program in recent iterations, projects are not
ranked or evaluated for prioritized need. The funding
authorizations for the program have been approved by
the legislature through statute in two different
methods. Most recently with an open-ended authority at
set reimbursement rates. Prior to the moratorium in
2015, the authorized rates for reimbursement by the
state were set at 60 and 70 percent and the new rates
which are currently set to be in effect July 1, 2025,
will be at 40 and 50 percent reimbursement. There was
a previous method of program authorization, which
established maximum amounts of project allocations per
municipal population or enrollment range and this
method was primarily used between 1990 and 2006.
1:41:25 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked if the Regional
Educational Attendance Area and Small Municipal School
District School Fund was one or two funds.
Ms. Weed confirmed it was one fund.
1:42:04 PM
Ms. Weed turned to slide 5 and reviewed current project
categories (AS 14.11.013) with prepared remarks:
Each project submitted to the department must fall
within one of the six identified categories from
statute. The categories are assigned to school
construction and major maintenance in AS 14.11.135.
When a project is assigned to a category and hence to
a specific grant fund, the ranking list for school
construction and major maintenance does not further
distinguish between these types of categories, and
except for a limited number of questions applicable
only to school construction, all projects are ranked
using the same scoring matrixes. This provides a
transparent framework for the department to balance
the wide-ranging scopes and disparate types of
projects from all across our state.
Ms. Weed turned to slide 6 and addressed capital
improvement plan (CIP) eligibility with prepared remarks:
To participate in a funding program under AS 14.11 the
district must meet statutory requirements including
providing a six-year capital improvement plan and
documentation of a functioning fixed asset inventory
system. A district must annually submit proof of
property insurance on their facilities. In order to
help ensure that systems are in place to adequately
care for its facilities, the district's preventative
maintenance and facility management program must be
currently certified with the department. Documentation
ensuring that a project is a capital project and not
part of a routine facility maintenance. Lastly,
acknowledge that the district is responsible for
meeting a portion of the project costs.
1:43:23 PM
Representative Hannan asked if there was a definition for
routine maintenance within the department. She wondered if
routine maintenance was specific to certain tasks or a
percentage of cost of operation.
Ms. Weed replied that [routine maintenance] was not defined
in regulation or statute and it was not necessarily based
on cost. She explained that routine maintenance was
preventative or a small repair (e.g., replacement of
filters, replacement of a small amount of carpet tile,
painting an interior). The department reviewed project
applications and may remove portions of scope that were not
determined to be a capital project. Whereas a capital
project would be a total system replacement.
Representative Hannan considered Juneau examples. She
understood Juneau would not qualify in the small school
fund. She provided a hypothetical example of a pipe
breaking causing a flood in a school library that meant all
of the carpet needed replacement because the situation
happened over winter break. She asked if it qualified as a
capital project. In another scenario, she assumed one
broken window would be considered routine maintenance,
whereas 50 broken windows from a storm event would be
considered a capital project.
Ms. Weed replied that the examples would likely be
insurance claims, which would not fall under capital
projects. She agreed that as the scope increased there was
a gray area. She relayed that there was a reconsideration
and appeal process for the dialogue to happen between the
department and a school district.
1:45:59 PM
Representative Bynum observed that slide 6 pertained to
eligibility, slide 4 addressed the four current funding
mechanisms, and the current project categories on slide 5.
He looked at the CIP eligibility on slide 6. He asked if
the CIP eligibility applied to all of the funding
mechanisms. He asked if the same formula was applied to all
four funding mechanisms and the project categories.
Ms. Weed responded affirmatively.
Representative Stapp stated that a couple of years ago on
the requirement for property insurance, the state ran into
an issue where the Kaktovik school was not insured up to
the replacement cost. He referenced the department's
process for verifying CIP eligibility and asked if it had
done anything since that time to make certain insurance was
sufficient to cover the replacement value of schools.
Ms. Weed answered the department was in the process of
reviewing how it analyzed appropriate school construction
costs. The insured values were supposed to be based on
insurance appraisals. She elaborated that statutory
requirements specified that it would be replacement cost.
Some of the insurers did that regardless of the premium
amount listed, while the department was still working with
others.
Representative Stapp remarked that he was aware of what the
law stated was supposed to happen. He assumed DEED was
verifying that the state was actually ensuring schools had
the appropriate insurance coverage in the event of
catastrophic events at schools.
Ms. Weed replied that DEED was currently reevaluating its
process to ensure there was a good comparison between what
a rough estimate of replacement cost per square footage
would be and what was actually being insured.
1:48:57 PM
Representative Johnson asked how the Natural Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) funding went to schools. She
understood there was a school component of the royalty. She
asked what fund it went into and how it could be used.
Ms. Weed replied that it was not a funding stream that went
through the DEED Facilities Section; therefore, she did not
have the information.
Representative Johnson asked if it went directly to local
school districts.
Ms. Weed responded that she did not have the information.
Ms. Weed continued her presentation on slide 7, pertaining
to grant participation and eligibility. She read from
prepared remarks:
Capital improvement project (CIP) grant applications
are received by the department from districts on or
before September 1. Over the next two months the
department reviews and ranks all submitted
applications. The Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review
Committee has established the application and ranking
metric that has the district identify and provide
standard information that is necessary for development
and evaluation of a project. The application is
reviewed and approved annually at the committee's
publicly noticed meetings. The department ensures that
eligibility criteria are met. The department will then
publish the initial ranking list on November 5th. The
districts have the opportunity to review the
department determinations on ranking and scoring
eligibility and modifications to scope and budget that
may have been done by the department. If
reconsideration is not favorable to a district, they
have the opportunity to appeal to an administrative
hearing officer and the decision by State Board of
Education. Ultimately, they are able to be heard, and
it could be decided in the superior court if needed.
The last major appeal was for the FY 26 budget cycle
and was for the Kivalina new school construction
project in Northwest Alaska.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if the grant application
process was easy or if there were schools that had a
difficult time with it.
Ms. Weed replied that the process was involved and could
vary on a scale depending on the resources available to a
district.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for details about the Kivalina
School District appeal.
Ms. Weed responded that the Kivalina School District had
submitted a ~$100 million project and the department had
reduced the project to approximately $43 million. The
school district had requested reconsideration on the
decision. She did not recall whether the department
increased the funding at that time. She elaborated that the
case went to a hearing officer and the funding was
increased to about $50 million. The primary dispute was
over the installation of additional water storage utility
capacity for water, power, sewer, and fuel tanks, which had
added a large cost. The department asserted it was
providing services for the community and not just the
school facility. She relayed that the department's position
was essentially upheld.
1:54:04 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked for verification that in the end
Kivalina received $50 million to replace its school.
Ms. Weed agreed. She elaborated that it was the last school
involved in the Kasayulie settlement. She explained that in
lieu of an addition or replacement school in the same
location, it had been moved to the community's resettlement
location.
Co-Chair Josephson noted it involved climate related
occurrences.
Representative Bynum noted the four different statutory
funding mechanisms including direct grants and bond debt
reimbursement. He looked at the grant participation
eligibility criteria on slide 7. He asked if the requests
were ranked equally based on merit or grouped based on
funding mechanism category.
Ms. Weed replied that grant projects were ranked at the
same time, but they were split between school construction
and major maintenance due to the funding sources. She
relayed that all school construction projects were ranked
against the same matrix and all major maintenance projects
were ranked against the same criteria. She clarified that
the two grants were ranked against the same criteria, but a
school construction project had several additional criteria
that applied. A school construction project was expected to
house additional students, which meant looking at
alternative facilities and population projection. She noted
that those items were not part of the scoring criteria for
major maintenance.
Representative Bynum he noted that Representative Rebecca
Schwanke brought forward the issue where REAAs potentially
did not have the capability of meeting CIP eligibility. He
elaborated that for small school districts it was very
difficult to dedicate the resources and technical
capabilities toward developing plans that require
engineering, evaluating six-year capital improvement plans,
and ensuring there was a preventative maintenance and
facility maintenance program. He asked if the department
had a mechanism in place to help small districts make sure
they were competitive in the request process.
Ms. Weed advanced to slide 8 to answer the question. The
slide pertained to what it took to fill out an application.
She read from prepared remarks:
Within the application there are prompts there and the
reward through scoring for districts to provide the
information needed for evaluation of the project scope
and necessity both by the district and by the
department when reviewing. This does include facility
information like age and conditions and an evaluation
of options. For new school construction it may include
different enrollment projections to justify a space
increase.
Ms. Weed addressed Representative Bynum's question about
whether engineering was required to evaluate whether a
project was needed. The department provided a variety of
tools including a condition survey template, which required
that someone on district staff had the qualifications to
say for example, that they had known the roof for 30 years,
and could identify the issues and provide photos. She
highlighted the importance of photos. The department
modified the process making it unnecessary for a
professional engineer or architect to visit a facility if
the school district had a person with sufficient
qualifications to look at a system and identify the
problems. She noted that it involved multimillion
facilities ranging from $10 million to $50 million. She
posed the question, "As part of good stewardship should you
be able to maintain and evaluate your facilities?"
Districts were required to have a preventative maintenance
program per statute to ensure that systems did not break
prematurely.
Ms. Weed relayed that the six-year plan development, which
was part of the preventative maintenance and facility
management program, did not have to be extensive. The
department required districts to maintain high level
renewal and replacement schedules based on facility
replacement costs. The department had a template, and most
districts maintained them as part of the program
certification. A project could be scoped based on systems
that were aging and coming due for replacement. The
department had eyes on those systems and acknowledged they
were coming due or had a couple of years remaining because
it had been well-maintained. She stated that a project
could be scoped very high level and come to the department
for development of initial design and further processing.
The department also provided a cost estimating tool to
identify by system or type of space.
2:01:55 PM
Ms. Weed continued to address slide 8 beginning with the
scope of work. She read from prepared remarks:
The scope of work can be established through narrative
and supported by preliminary design documents. The
estimate of the budget, what does the district think
it will take versus the department coming up with a
number, was helpful and important. Documentation that
supports the statements in the application can provide
assurance of accuracy and allows the department to
evaluate the project presented to ensure that it is in
the best interest of both the district and the state.
The department provides numerous publications and
tools for districts to complete each step of the
application without professional assistance if needed.
These tools walk a district through completing
elements of the application including options costing
analysis, condition survey, population projections,
and budget. In addition to always being able to answer
district questions during application development
including use of the tools, facilities staff at the
department participate in statewide conferences
including those for the Alaska Association for School
Business Officials and the maintenance director
conference hosted by the Association of Alaska School
Boards.
We also often speak at the UAS aspiring superintendent
course. Mr. Butikofer was just presenting there last
evening. Specifically, Facilities also hosts an annual
training workshop on the application identifying any
changes, going over the tools available, and will be
providing monthly question and answer sessions for
districts throughout the summer leading up to the
application deadline.
2:03:38 PM
Representative Bynum explained that it had become apparent
to him that there were billions of dollars of deferred
maintenance on state-owned assets with no system in place
to identify or pay for the needs. He understood DEED was
not fully responsible for education facilities, but there
were billions of dollars' worth of facilities with hundreds
of millions of dollars of backlog deferred maintenance. He
referenced Ms. Weed's statements that there were rules in
place that told school districts they shall have mechanisms
in place to protect assets. However, there were hundreds of
millions of dollars in deferred maintenance. He asked what
mechanisms were in place to create enforcement. He noted
that there was a lot of discussion about the importance of
education in Alaska, but it was not only about putting
money into classrooms for teachers, administrative
functions, and classroom tools. He stated that another
important component was the classrooms themselves and
facilities. He remarked that healthy facilities were good
for teaching and schools. He was a bit frustrated because
he knew there were hundreds of millions of dollars in
backlog maintenance. He was trying to get a grasp on how to
get it under control and what mechanisms the state had to
help with the problem. He remarked that there was no
enforcement mechanism or assistance provided to school
districts. He was afraid there would continue to be a
problem of backlog maintenance. He was trying to reach a
solution.
Ms. Weed responded that the department's program was
voluntary for school districts. She stated there could
certainly be a legislative change if desired.
Representative Hannan asked how many people worked in DEED
Facilities a decade ago compared to present day.
Ms. Weed answered that she had worked for Facilities a
decade ago, and it had maintained a staff of five since
that time.
Representative Hannan shared that in her 20 years with the
Juneau School District, the district's maintenance
department suffered many cuts long before the district
began cutting kindergarten teachers and consolidating
buildings. She elaborated that year-round maintenance
became summer maintenance only. She explained that the
maintenance crew stopped plowing parking lots, and the
responsibility went to the custodian because the
maintenance crew only had one plow truck and 13 buildings
needing plowing before school could open. She could only
imagine when the school district was an REAA with 20
locations. She continued that an REAA may have had a
custodian at one point who was a "jack of all trades" in
every building, but as those positions were cut, the
district maintenance crew only came out once or twice a
year to deal with a crisis. She emphasized that some of the
onus was on the legislature because buildings had been
built but school districts were not receiving the budget to
keep doing the things it said. She considered the question
of enforcement. She asked if the legislature should say
that if a school district was not doing regular maintenance
it needed to shutter its doors. She did not believe it was
what her colleague was asserting. She stressed that the
legislature had set up a program and asked DEED to oversee
it, but as the legislature had retracted its supports, the
districts did not have mechanisms to stand up better
maintenance and ongoing maintenance. She added that DEED
had shrunk in size substantially. She thought there would
have been more people in Facilities when the state was
constructing buildings, but it was good they were all out
in districts and it was still five people who could help 54
school districts get their requests to go forward.
2:09:10 PM
Ms. Weed advanced to a chart on slide 9 pertaining to grant
participation and eligibility FY 16 to FY 26. She provided
prepared remarks:
This grant participation and eligibility showed a
chart of the last 11 years of ranked grant projects.
There was a dip in FY 19 and FY 20 in most part due to
the department exercising its authority to reallocate
funding within the major maintenance and school
construction grant funds to projects on the list. We
did that behind when a normal legislative
appropriation would occur, so districts were catching
up with their application submittals. This most recent
decade from FY 16 to FY 26 and a year prior to that,
there was an average of approximately 117 applications
with a 60 percent participation rate from districts
and we've funded approximately 16 percent of the
requests. In the first decade of the current program
structure, which was approximately 1994 to 2004, there
was an average of 178 applications with an 83 percent
participation rate by districts and the state was able
to fund 25 percent of those requested projects. I
think we all acknowledge that the needs now are not
less than they were then, but the ability to receive
grant funding has been a lot less certain in this last
10 years and consider also that there was an active
debt reimbursement authorization during that decade as
well.
2:11:07 PM
Ms. Weed reviewed total eligible grant projects and actual
grant funding by fiscal year on slide 10:
The total eligible grant projects versus the actual
funding by fiscal year, you see a comparison of the
eligible ranked grant projects and the amount of
projects funded for the school construction here on
the left, and major maintenance on the right. It is
important to note that the amount funded does not
include reappropriations or reallocations of fund
balances. So, when we talked before about the
department using its ability to reallocate funding in
the years of 2018, you'll see a funded amount of zero,
but 16 projects funded.
Ms. Weed noted that she would elaborate on related
information from a report momentarily. She provided a brief
look at the FY 26 school construction and major maintenance
grant list request totals on slide 11. She explained that
it was the total projects the districts chose to submit
applications for the past September.
Ms. Weed moved to total six-year plan requests on slide 12:
When school districts provide their six-year plans as
that eligibility requirement, the department compiles
the data to provide a snapshot of the current
estimated need. She noted that not all school
districts submit in any given year, and the data only
includes projects identified by districts (whole
dollars, not adjusted for inflation).
Ms. Weed looked at recent funding on slide 13:
The departments report school capital project funding
under SB 237 provides additional data on the funding
provided by the state for school capital projects. The
most recent addition was published on February 28,
2025. This documents the $1.75 billion in project
funding that had been provided by the state between
the bond debt reimbursement and grant programs from FY
11 through the current fiscal year.
Ms. Weed turned to an excerpt from the School Capital
Project Funding Report on slide 14. She read from prepared
remarks:
You can see the marked shift in percentage of funded
capital projects when the state experienced a sharp
decline in resources or revenues and continued to have
budget pressure. There has been a significant
reduction in capital spending on school projects
through both the grant program and by instituting the
moratorium on the debt reimbursement program.
Ms. Weed advanced to slide 15 pertaining to deferred
maintenance funding at Mt. Edgecumbe High School:
As a division of the state, the Mt. Edgecumbe High
School (MEHS) is not part of the AS 14.11 grant
program and has received direct appropriations from
the legislature or could receive funding through the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
deferred maintenance list. Currently, Mt. Edgecumbe
has $11.4 million in funded projects. The department
submitted $22.8 million in projects for Mt. Edgecumbe
in FY 26 to the statewide deferred maintenance list.
2:14:29 PM
Ms. Weed highlighted a list of additional resources on
slide 16.
Representative Bynum remarked that the presentation
included a lot of information about what the programs
looked like associated with putting money into school
facilities. He highlighted that a topic he did not see
included was that on the foundation formula side of the
funding, it was not necessarily an equal cost share. He
elaborated that the city and boroughs were required to pay
a local contribution for their schools, whereas other parts
of the state were not. He asked if the state tracked who
paid for facilities. For example, part of his district was
a city and borough, and the borough was paying for the bulk
of facilities (e.g., ball fields, gymnasiums, rooves) and
it could apply for bond debt reimbursement from the state,
which may or may not get paid depending on whether the
legislature appropriated the money. He wondered if the
department had the data showing the actual dollars in
facilities were compared to REAAs versus city and boroughs
and what share the state had through the different
programs.
Ms. Weed replied that the department collected audited
financials that included capital project funding received
by districts if received from the local municipality for a
project operated by the district, but the department would
not have information on what cities were expending on
capital projects for facilities within their boundaries.
Representative Bynum explained that he was trying to
determine who was paying for the schools. He asked if
Alaskans were collectively paying for the facilities.
Alternatively, he asked if facilities were being built by
the state through grant processes in areas that did not
have the ability to collect taxes. Additionally, that city
and boroughs were responsible for building the facilities
and potentially receiving some reimbursement down the road.
He wondered if the department had the information showing
the breakdown of who was paying.
Ms. Weed did not believe the department had the
information. She noted that city and boroughs were welcome
to apply for a school construction grant to have a
replacement school. She added that with the current
reduction in population and enrollment, many city and
boroughs already had an excess of square footage and would
not be eligible for a construction project.
Representative Bynum would follow up with a specific
request to the department. He was trying to determine how
facilities were originally funded and how they were being
maintained through state dollars (for city and boroughs,
REAAs, cost sharing, and other mechanisms).
2:18:42 PM
Co-Chair Schrage thanked the presenters. He moved to a
presentation by the Alaska Council of School
Administrators.
2:19:08 PM
DR. LISA PARADY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COUNCIL OF
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, provided a PowerPoint presentation
titled "School District Major Maintenance," dated March 21,
2025 (copy on file). She noted the importance of the topic.
She noted that the cover slide of the presentation showed a
picture of a roof leak at the Thorne Bay School in the
Southeast Island School District. She pointed to the image
showing water coming through the roof and flooding the
school building. The Thorne Bay roof repair was project 81
on DEED's major maintenance list.
Dr. Parady explained that the Alaska Council of School
Administrators (ACSA) represented all school districts,
administrators, and students. The organization was focused
on leadership, unity, and advocacy for public education,
including neighborhood correspondence and charter schools.
She thanked Ms. Weed and Mr. Butikofer for reviewing AS
14.11 and the process. She planned to provide a perspective
from the ground versus digging into the process.
Dr. Parady moved to slide 3 titled "ACSA Joint Position
Statements - Major Maintenance." She relayed that all of
the committee members had received ACSA's joint position
statements reflecting the organization's highest priorities
in public education. She highlighted that the
organization's members had ranked major and deferred
maintenance and school capital construction as some of the
highest priorities. The organization was advocating for a
thorough review and updated process of DEED's major
maintenance application process. She stated that in order
to provide a safe and healthy environment for students it
was necessary to ensure reliable and equitable funding
through the department's school construction process to all
district facilities. She noted that school bond debt
reimbursement was a related issue. The organization
encouraged the legislature to reject a moratorium on school
bond debt reimbursement in the future because due to the
existing moratorium, many school districts deferred school
construction projects that resulted in deterioration and
long-term damage leading to unsafe conditions and higher
costs to school districts and ultimately the state.
Students' safety and healthy learning environments were
linked.
Dr. Parady turned to an illustration on slide 4 showing
Alaska's schools by the numbers. There were 444 schools
currently in operation and 127 were REAAS. She highlighted
that 63 percent of the buildings were at least 40 years
old.
2:22:55 PM
Dr. Parady turned to slide 5 and discussed ongoing
challenges pertaining to deferred maintenance. The average
age of a school building in Alaska was 45 years with 83
buildings over 60 years old. The current FY 26 DEED major
maintenance list had over $330 million in projects with
more that were not listed due to the current application
process. She appreciated the earlier questions from
Representative Tomaszewski and Representative Bynum about
the application process because it was a financial burden
to complete the applications. For example, the application
for the Sleetmute school cost over $200,000. She pointed
out that the funds could have been used in the classroom,
but in an REAA, the funds were being shifted to things like
the application because their staff did not have sufficient
qualifications or background to complete the applications
and the costs of professionals exceeded their budgets. The
slide showed an image of the St Paul School air handler
shaft in the Pribilof School district.
She turned to slide 6 titled "School District Major
Maintenance." She highlighted that for FY 26 the total
dollar amount for the six-year plan requests by school
districts was about $1.8 billion. She detailed that the
number only equated to 60 percent of the school districts
because about 60 percent had submitted the six-year plan
request to the department. She emphasized that the state
did not know what the costs were for about 40 percent of
the school districts. She believed it lent credence to the
discussion earlier in the meeting about trying to get a
better handle on deferred maintenance costs that had not
been attended to. The slide showed an image of Homer High
School roof dry rot (located in the Kenai Peninsula School
District). She referenced reports by ProPublica and KYUK
about school facilities in Alaska facing critical crises.
She explained that the lack of funding of school major
maintenance projects by the state left schools with
deferred maintenance projects. Many of the projects had
been on the list for more than a decade. She remarked that
it led to increased costs for the state and unsafe learning
environments for students.
2:25:59 PM
Dr. Parady addressed slide 7 showing a table with
recommended and funded capital renewal by fiscal year. The
information reflected the industry standard for facilities
for DEED. The list recommended 3 percent capital renewal
for school maintenance. She clarified that the updated
recommendation was 4 percent. Since 2014, the legislature
had not funded half of the recommended amount. She
explained that the lack of funding coupled with the
moratorium on school bond debt had left boroughs and
municipalities often to pay for the projects. She
referenced recent research from Institute of Social and
Economic Research (ISER) demonstrating the cost shift from
the state to municipalities and local boroughs. She
highlighted that the 19 REAA districts end up having to use
general funds for maintenance in many cases, which took
away from classrooms.
2:27:19 PM
Representative Bynum referenced Dr. Parady's statements
that the state only had information from school districts
that had submitted [a six-year plan request] and there were
a large portion of districts that had not provided the
information. He asked how good the information was from
school districts that had provided it. He remarked that
just because a district submitted a request, it did not
mean it was an accurate reflection of the actual need of
the school district.
Dr. Parady answered that it was always her position that
school districts were putting forward the best information
they could. She relayed that administration had been cut so
severely in the majority of districts across the state that
often it was one administrator trying to pull the
information together because they could not afford the
expertise of an engineer or architect. She believed in good
faith that applications were submitted with the best
information districts were able to put together. She could
not speak to it beyond that.
2:28:56 PM
Dr. Parady moved to a table on slide 8 showing a handful of
projects that had been on the major maintenance list since
2018. She noted that 2018 was the farthest back the
information on the DEED website went. She pointed out the
projects in Yupiit and Kake that had dropped on the list
over the last seven years. She explained it was an example
of why many districts were frustrated with the current
process of funding projects and why many did not apply for
funding. She elaborated that knowing that the cost of the
application may not lead to receiving funds to fix schools
for over a decade or possibly ever was a disincentive. The
DEED list for the current year included 84 projects, but
there were many more that school districts had not applied
for through the application process because of the cost
barrier.
2:29:56 PM
Dr. Parady turned to slide 9 and pointed to a photo of the
McGrath School attic showing ice in tarps located in the
Iditarod School District. She noted it was project 62 [on
the DEED list]. She stated that many of Alaska's schools
were falling apart or in serious need, especially in rural
and remote districts. She elaborated that students were
going to buildings that were partially condemned, had leaky
roofs, and black mold. She remarked that the learning
environments and working conditions were not safe for
students or educators. She stressed that Alaska was
struggling to recruit and retain educators. She stated that
in these conditions educators were exercising their option
to leave. Her strongest concern was that students who lived
in the communities generally did not have the option to
leave. She provided an example of a student trying to learn
to read or do math with a leaky roof dripping in a bucket
behind them. She believed they needed to do better for
students.
Dr. Parady relayed that the committee would hear from the
LKSD [Lower Kuskokwim School District], which was the
largest rural school district in Alaska and the fourth or
fifth largest school district overall. She noted that LKSD
is an REAA and would provide the committee with its
perspective. Additionally, the committee would hear from
two of the largest school districts about their particular
experience.
2:31:33 PM
Dr. Parady turned to slide 10 showing images of deferred
maintenance that were not included on the DEED CIP list.
The first image showed splitting due to foundation failures
at the Galena School, which was one of the state's largest
correspondence schools. She stressed that the building was
literally splitting in half. The elevator in the Kuspuk
School District office had been out of service for many
years, creating barriers for people in wheelchairs to
attend school board meetings. She emphasized that schools
were community meeting places [in rural areas]. She
underscored that not having operational elevators was
prohibitive to citizens. Additionally, schools operated as
emergency centers in most of Alaska. The slide also showed
an image of deteriorating boilers in the Copper River
School District. She elaborated that one of the boilers had
blown and the district had to allocate $800,000 from
somewhere to cover the cost. The impacts of deferred
maintenance were affecting students from day to day.
Dr. Parady turned to additional images showing impacts of
deferred maintenance on slide 11. The image on the left
showed the deterioration of the bathroom floor in Nikolai
School located in the Iditarod School District, which was
another unlisted project. The center image was number 4 on
the DEED list for exterior siding cracking at the Soldotna
High School. The photo on the right showed standing water
under the Chevak school, which was currently 24 on the
list.
Dr. Parady moved to proposed solutions on slide 12. The
first solution on the list was to increase state capital
funding. The second item was to develop a long-term
maintenance strategy. A strategy should consider how the
state was monitoring and planning for the issue and what
kind of strategic steps were in place. The third item was
to ensure equitable resource distribution, which did not
necessarily seem to be in place. The fourth item was to
review and update the application process. She did not know
that it was necessary to separate lists for REAA districts
and municipal/borough districts, but it was necessary to
acknowledge they were not similarly situated and to account
for that in some way. The last item was to provide
engineering and architectural support for districts that
could not afford it in order to even the playing field. The
slide included an image of a flooded septic tank due to a
pump failure in the Lake and Peninsula Borough School
District. She appreciated the committee's time and
attention to what she considered to be a big black hole.
2:35:23 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked for details about the
Council of School Administrators. He asked if Dr. Parady
was a state employee.
Dr. Parady replied that ACSA was over 50 years old and was
a private nonprofit. She was not a state employee. The
organization was formed to support education in Alaska and
had been successfully doing so for over 50 years. The
organization represented all superintendents, secondary and
elementary school principals, school business officials,
and a host of other school administrators and educators.
Representative Tomaszewski asked how many people were in
the organization and how it was funded.
Dr. Parady answered that ACSA was a private nonprofit. The
organization braided funding like most nonprofits. There
was a division within ACSA called the Alaska Staff
Development Network that provided the greatest amount of
professional development to all educators including
teachers in Alaska. The organization put on the largest
education conference in the state, MTSS/RTI. She explained
that most school districts had not been able to afford
travel for professional development out of state for quite
some time. Historically, educators were able to travel to a
reading conference or some other professional development
conference, but those days were gone. She shared that ACSA
brought in the best high quality professional development
providers in order for educators in Alaska to have some
access to professional development in person and virtually.
Dr. Parady explained that she was providing examples of
braiding. The Department of Education and Early Development
often looked to ACSA to support efforts DEED was trying to
accomplish. For example, ACSA had recently become the hub
for teacher recruitment and retention for Alaska. After
education funding, recruitment and retention were the next
most important issues. The organization was working on
recruitment and retention in three ways. First, the
organization was working on the governor's taskforce for
teacher recruitment and retention. The taskforce made
several good recommendations that ACSA was implementing.
One of the items was an omnibus bill focused on specific
items to make it easier to attract and retain educators,
such as removing barriers to make it easier to teach in
Alaska.
Dr. Paraday addressed the second way ACSA was working on
recruitment and retention. She detailed that [University of
Alaska] President Pat Pitney asked about a year ago if ACSA
would consider administering Alaska Teacher Placement
(ATP). She explained it had been the historic program used
for job fairs to attract teachers and other educators. She
explained that in the last year there were more districts
attending than applicants and President Pitney asked if it
may be a better fit to ACSA in order to maximize virtual
job fairs and do training for educators to recruit. The
third strand was international hire. The state was
increasingly reliant on international teachers coming to
Alaska. She expounded that ACSA opened a job application
process and within 15 minutes there were over 700
applicants from international sources. The organization
worked closely with the University of Alaska to employ
every graduate. She highlighted that the school districts
had started the year out down 600 certified positions. She
stated that students deserved teachers; therefore, ACSA was
working double time to help districts fill positions. She
stated that running a nonprofit in Alaska made a person
very resourceful and efficient.
2:40:55 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked how the organization was
funded. He asked if the organization received state
funding.
Dr. Parady answered that the organization received grants
in addition to the two sources she mentioned in her
previous response. The organization had written many grants
to support school districts across the state that it helped
to administer and manage. She was happy to talk about the
topic offline.
Representative Bynum referenced a comment by Dr. Parady
that funding was needed for REAAs and city and borough
schools, but they were situated differently. He asked for
clarification.
Dr. Parady explained that she meant that costs had shifted
to local governments when municipal and borough school
districts had unexpected major maintenance events. In REAA
situations, the opportunity did not exist.
Representative Bynum asked who should be responsible for
funding school buildings. He asked if the state should be
responsible, the local community should be responsible, or
a combination of both.
Dr. Parady replied that it was her perspective that the
state was responsible. She believed the Kasayulie
settlement would agree. She remarked that in a previous
hearing during the current session a legislator had
suggested perhaps it was time for Kasayulie 2.0 given the
state of disrepair of the facilities.
Representative Bynum knew that the number of students in
Alaska's schools was declining, and the square footage of
facilities was growing. He noted that it did not
necessarily mean that a school building itself would not
need to be replaced. He highlighted the facilities were
aging and like all aging facilities, even if the square
footage was growing because students were leaving the
school, did not necessarily mean there would not be
recapitalized costs of building new schools moving forward.
2:44:24 PM
Representative Allard stated that she had not heard Dr.
Parady answer the question about where ACSA received its
grant money. She asked how much funding the organization
received from the state and where it obtained other funds.
Dr. Parady responded that she was happy to follow up with
the information. She did not have the breakdown of the
different braided funds on hand.
Representative Allard asked why the presenter did not have
the information on hand.
Dr. Parady replied that she came to the committee to speak
about the state of disrepair of the facilities across
Alaska, which she believed she had done a fairly good job
of. She had no understanding that the committee would be
interested in ACSA's private nonprofit balance sheet. She
was happy to talk about the information offline.
Co-Chair Schrage confirmed that Dr. Parady had been asked
to come speak to some of the needs across the state. They
could follow up offline to answer additional committee
member questions. He thanked the presenter. He asked to
hear from the LKSD.
2:45:32 PM
ANDREW ANDERSON, SUPERINTENDENT, LOWER KUSKOKWIM SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BETHEL (via teleconference), provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled "School District Major
Maintenance," dated March 21, 2025 (copy on file). He began
on slide 2 titled "Lower Kuskokwim School District (REAA)."
The LKSD was Alaska's largest rural school district in the
number of schools, students, and staff, comprised of 21
villages, 26 schools (the differences between the number of
villages and schools were the schools in Bethel or the
district offices in the region hub), and about 3,800
students. He noted there had been some impact on the
student population in the COVID-19 pandemic years. The
district was located approximately 400 miles west of
Anchorage and the district encompassed the lower part of
the Kuskokwim River delta. He described that many of the
villages were located on the river, there were some on the
coast, and a few located northwest of Bethel on the
tributary areas called the tundra villages. The district
was Alaska's second largest geographical district with
roughly 22,000 square miles (about the size of West
Virginia).
Mr. Anderson advanced to slide 3 titled "LKSD ~ Another
Perspective":
• LKSD maintains over 130 buildings (excluding teacher
housing)
• Representing almost 1 million square feet of space
(900,355ft2)
• With a replacement cost of almost 1 billion dollars
($905,921,860.00)
• With deferred major maintenance costs of
$313,802,331.00 (~ 35% of replacement)
• Deferred maintenance is a huge lift for the district
to tackle and some sites cannot wait
• The average cost of repair per square foot is about
$500 ($496.97)
• Every material we need for repairs must be flown or
barged in
• Aging facilities have advanced needs
• Climate change and other environmental concerns cause
funding crises
Mr. Anderson elaborated on the slide. He noted that many
school districts could not afford inhouse expertise for
much of the work, especially for more significant
maintenance; therefore, contractual costs were an
additional cost compared to an inhouse cost. He relayed
that as aging facility needs were not met, the needs became
more advanced and costly. Unmet needs could gradually lead
to the need for facility replacement instead of renovation.
He added that in rural Alaska, the deteriorating condition
of facilities was not only a concern with regard to basic
cost, but the environmental issues were very serious as
well. He would address the issue in more detail on an
upcoming slide. He highlighted several communities and
schools facing rapid river erosion and the associated
costs. The bottom of the slide listed various schools he
would address on subsequent slides.
2:52:40 PM
Mr. Anderson moved to slide 4 titled "Anna Tobeluk Memorial
School Renovation Addition, Nunapitchuk project." He
relayed that Nunapitchuk was one of the tundra villages
located northwest of Bethel. The project had been submitted
for consideration in 2019 and was number 2 on the CIP list
in FY 24. The project had dropped to number 3 on the list
in FY 25 and number 6 in FY 26. There were various
maintenance costs including glulam replacement (substantial
foundational support systems for the school), and fuel tank
abatement. He pointed to a photo in the upper right showing
fuel tanks leaning dramatically. He elaborated that the
tanks contained fuel that needed to be carefully removed
and dealt with. The tanks needed to be retired and
hopefully eventually moved. He noted that the tanks were
located close to the edge of the river. He explained it was
an example of facility degradation and what could come from
a significant environmental impact. The photo in the center
of the slide showed an abandoned building, which should
ideally be taken down. He stated it was a fire control
system that needed to be replaced, and the district was
still getting engineering specs to move the project
forward. He relayed that the other pieces were forward
funded to maintain integrity within facilities.
2:54:19 PM
Mr. Anderson advanced to slide 5 showing the Newtok
relocation/replacement K-12 school, Mertarvik project. The
slide showed one of two of the most recent serious river
erosion issues. The Mertarvik project involved a new school
coming online in the summer of 2025. In the meantime,
students were attending school in a converted warehouse in
very compromised learning conditions. He noted the dates on
the photos showing the community of Newtok were not exactly
correct. The upper photo showed containers lined up for
deconstruction of the community and many would remain
onsite for the continued deconstruction of the school
building located behind the containers in the upper photo.
He highlighted the dramatic erosion of the river up to the
school building and the fuel tanks. He relayed that as of
the present day, the school buildings had been demolished.
2:56:23 PM
Mr. Anderson turned to slide 6 showing Napakiak erosion,
which had been accelerated by disastrous spring ice break
up and heavy summer storms. The community was located 20
miles southwest of Bethel on the main river. He pointed to
a photo in the upper left of the slide dated June 16, 2024,
showing the distance between the bank of the river and the
school building at 29 feet. He noted that prior to Memorial
Day the distance was 59 or 60 feet. A photo dated August
27, 2024, showed the river bank up to the edge of the
building. The photo on the bottom right dated September 21,
2024, showed the building had been taken down under a very
accelerated timeframe of hazardous materials removal. He
reported that the new school for Napakiak was under
construction and due to come online during the summer. He
explained that because a construction crew had been onsite
and there was money available within the fund, it had been
transferred to remove the school on a very accelerated
timeframe with particular urgency around the environmental
impact of the school going into the river. The district was
very fortunate to be able to access existing funds for the
new school. The district was hoping extra funds would be
available through the FY 26 CIP application process to
backfill funding used for the deconstruction of the school.
The district had been encouraged by DEED of the possibility
of adding the funds as a supplemental in the FY 26 CIP
list, but there were no guarantees.
2:59:42 PM
Mr. Anderson advanced to slide 7 pertaining to the Akula
Elitnauvik K-12 school renovation in Kasigluk-Akula. He
highlighted that the initial conditions survey was
completed in 2016 and the cost estimates for the repair
were much lower than when it was funded on the CIP list in
FY 25. The highest cost option for renovation was $476,541
in 2016 and had increased to $4.5 million in FY 19 and $5.8
million in FY 25. He relayed that the increase represented
the rapid deterioration of buildings when things were not
taken care of in a timely manner. The increase also
reflected the additional cost of inflation as delay
continued.
Mr. Anderson turned to slide 8 titled "Bethel Campus Fire
Upgrade funded in FY 19 for $2,955,464 in FY 24 add
$252,526." He pointed to an image on the right of the slide
showing a water tank used for fire protection on the main
Bethel campus, which included four school buildings and the
district office. He relayed there were daily efforts to
bring it to a deconstruction and replacement place. The
cost of the bids were higher than the available funding and
the district continued to try to work toward a solution. In
the meantime, the district was dipping into general revenue
in order to hold the facility in a stable condition.
Mr. Anderson moved to slide 9 showing images of bulk fuel
tanks. He underscored that bulk fuel was a tremendously
important issue. The tanks shown in the middle of the slide
were located in Newtok and the image on the left showed a
much larger fuel tank farm. He explained that all of the
tanks needed to be drained and disassembled. The cost
estimate for doing the work on the larger tank farm was
currently $150,000. The district's operations director told
him many of the tanks were scattered throughout the
district at different school sites. Slide 10 included a
forward funded project for the Lower Kuskokwim Gladys Jung
Elementary School in Bethel that was not reimbursed by
DEED. The slide highlighted what was occurring due to the
project's placement well down the DEED CIP list. He
recognized that many school districts had very significant
and serious needs; therefore, it was no surprise the
projects moved around on the [DEED] list, but the
underlying reality was that funding was not available to
adequately deal with facility needs.
Mr. Anderson closed on slide 11. He stated that all of
Alaska's schools were dedicated to serving students and the
communities where they live, play, and learn. He
underscored that providing equitable facilities was
critically important. He thanked the committee for its time
and was available for questions.
Co-Chair Schrage thanked the presenter.
3:04:08 PM
ANDY DEGRAW, CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR
BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (via teleconference), provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled "School District Major
Maintenance: Fairbanks North Star Borough School District"
dated March 21, 2025 (copy on file). He noted he was
speaking in support of an increased investment in major
maintenance and capital construction. He began with a
district overview on slide 2. The slide showed the number
of students, total square footage, the number of
facilities, and the average age of the facilities. The
district had a significant number of buildings that were
over 35 years old. The district's most recent building was
constructed in 2016, and the oldest building was Lathrop
High School built in the early 1950s.
Mr. DeGraw turned to a chart showing the district's
deferred maintenance history on slide 3. The chart depicted
a sharp increase in deferred maintenance in the mid to late
teens and reaching about $367 million in the current year.
He advanced to capital improvement plan projects on slide
4. The slide showed the lifecycle of renovations and
replacements to maintain a building. There were four
primary phases that school districts follow to renovate and
keep buildings upgraded through their lifecycle. He stated
that keeping up with the phases preserved the investment
and extended the life of a building and its ability to
remain open and serving students.
Mr. DeGraw detailed that it was a good investment to follow
the phases and remain up to date. Phase 1 included
classroom upgrades, phase 2 included exterior upgrades such
as roofs, phase 3 included mechanical upgrades such as
heating, and phase 4 included site improvements. The slide
included the number of years where work was recommended
associated with each phase. He highlighted that the last
phase 1 upgrade in the Fairbanks School District (FSD) was
20 years back. He underscored that Tanana Middle School was
50 years old and the classrooms were original. He pointed
out that the recommended replacement [for classroom
upgrades] was 20 to 25 years. He emphasized that the vast
majority of the buildings were on original boiler systems.
The district was not doing preventative maintenance on the
systems; it was doing reactive replacements as the systems
failed. The district was on its third failure of the year,
and the North Pole High School boiler was in the process of
failing. There was currently an emergency process in place
to replace it. He highlighted that because the HVAC systems
were original, spare parts were not available through
normal distribution channels. He informed the committee
that staff were regularly on eBay and Amazon.com finding
obsolete out of date spare parts. He stressed that close to
half of the schools in the district had zero of the phases
done. He reiterated that the average age of the buildings
was over 40 years old.
3:09:19 PM
Mr. DeGraw addressed maintenance priority guidelines on
slide 5. Fire, life, and safety and safety and security
were main components that had to be addressed immediately
as situations arose. He stated that supplemental services
included items that were breaking down that were not
necessarily critical to fire, life, safety, and security.
Examples included a broken water fountain or aesthetic
damage to the inside of a building that was not necessarily
safety related. The last category was preventative
maintenance. He stated that it was extremely beneficial for
districts to be able to focus on preventive maintenance to
keep systems up to date and working properly. He
underscored that it was much less expensive to maintain
systems in a preventative manner than in a reactionary
manner. Additionally, it was better for overall efficiency
of running a building. He highlighted the link between the
lack of general fund funding for education in Alaska and
capital and major maintenance funding. He shared that FSD
had been forced to reduce staff significantly in its
facilities department to the point where preventative
maintenance was not possible. The district was strictly
focused on reactionary emergency responses to fire, life,
safety, and security situations. There was a direct link
between the lack of general fund funding - where when FSD
had to make cuts, it went as far away from the classroom as
possible, which was unfortunately the facilities
department. He noted that when the cuts were made, the
district quickly realized the facilities staff was not as
far away from the classroom as originally thought as
facilities were not functioning as well as they could be.
He remarked that negative situations could certainly impact
learning in the classroom.
Mr. DeGraw included a chart reflecting maintenance staffing
reductions from FY 11 to FY 26. There was not necessarily a
significant decline between FY 11 and FY 21, but it was the
time that the lack of major maintenance and capital
investments started to "rear its head." While the district
had relatively the same number of staff, the workload
dramatically increased as buildings began to wear down due
to a lack of investment. In FY 22, out of necessity, the
district attempted to significantly decrease its
maintenance staff, but the district realized quickly that
it was not sustainable and had to reinvest in maintenance
staff.
3:12:31 PM
Mr. DeGraw addressed custodial staffing reductions on slide
7. He noted that FSD did not have janitors, it had
custodians who participated in routine and preventive
maintenance. The reduction in positions was due to a lack
of general funding, which negatively impacted the
preventative maintenance the district was able to
accomplish in its buildings. Slide 8 included a table
showing the district's projects currently on the state CIP
list. He highlighted that the district did not necessarily
have a project located high on the list. The district had
been forced to reduce numerous administrative positions in
its facilities department that were responsible for the
upfront leg work on condition assessments and engineering
reports in order to move projects up the state list. Due to
the lack of capacity, the district had a difficult time
doing appropriate condition assessments to get its
buildings ranked higher on the list. For example, the
Tanana Middle School was a 50-year old building and the
classroom upgrades were only 59 on the list.
Mr. DeGraw concluded the presentation on slide 9 showing
images illustrating the district's [deferred maintenance]
challenges. The photo in the upper left of the slide was a
boiler at the North Pole High School that had been leaking
out its side. The middle upper photo depicted deteriorating
exterior siding that could create structural issues if not
addressed. Other photos showed roof leaks and more interior
items. He thanked the committee and was available for
questions.
Representative Stapp asked when FSD had last had a project
in the top 10 on the [DEED] major maintenance list.
Mr. DeGraw answered that it was about six to seven years
back and it was taken off the list. He would follow up with
the precise information.
Representative Stapp pointed out that it was rare to see a
Fairbanks school project in the top 10 for major
maintenance.
Representative Stapp did not see the Ticasuk Brown
Elementary School on the list. He understood the school had
some renovations that were supposed to be made. He asked
what happened.
Mr. DeGraw responded that he would follow up with the
information. He stressed that Fairbanks had dealt with more
acute financial challenges than many other districts. He
underscored that Fairbanks had closed seven schools in the
past three to four years, which represented close to 20
percent of the schools in the district. He highlighted that
maintenance administrative cuts had tied the district's
hands and hamstrung its ability to get projects funded. He
stated that the district was actively trying to remedy the
problem. He added that the district had projects on the
list in the past and due to various circumstances they had
not been funded.
Co-Chair Schrage thanked the presenter. He noted there were
questions from Representative Tomaszewski and
Representative Bynum but due to the time, they would have
to be addressed offline. He moved to the last presentation.
3:17:24 PM
FRANK HAUSER, SUPERINTENDENT, JUNEAU SCHOOL DISTRICT,
provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "School District
Major Maintenance: Juneau School District," dated March 21,
2025 (copy on file). He thanked the committee for the
opportunity to testify. He provided prepared remarks:
Within these capitol walls with functioning fire
suppression, sprinklers, heating, and running water,
our Alaskan kids and their standardized test scores
are frequently compared to those of students across
the country. So, I thought it would be an interesting
comparison to really compare the learning
environments. These are students learning environments
in Massachusetts [slide 2], which ranked number one
among states on the NAEP test. There in Massachusetts,
the Massachusetts Building Authority "has a dedicated
revenue stream of one penny of the state's 6.25
percent sales tax and is collaborating with
municipalities to equitably invest in educationally
appropriate solutions to create safe, sound, and
sustainable learning environments." The Massachusetts
Building Authority has made more than $17.7 billion in
reimbursements to cities, towns, and regional school
districts for school construction projects. Instead of
waiting years for reimbursement, districts now receive
payments from the building authority at costs as they
are incurred, usually within 15 days of submitting a
request through the MSBA's online Pro-Pay system.
3:20:14 PM
Mr. Hauser turned to slide 3 showing images of Alaskan
school environments and read from prepared remarks:
Let's take a look at Alaskan learning environments
now. You've seen multiple images of school buildings
and facilities across Alaska in critical disrepair,
crumbling from neglect and barely functional as safe
learning environments. We're sometimes lucky if we
have things under 50 years old in our schools. Far
from having new doors and windows, our schools have
leaky roofs and doors that won't even shut. These
realities in Alaska's schools have an impact. In case
anyone is thinking these images are all rural areas,
the image at the bottom left is just down the street
in Alaska's capital city, that's a leaky roof at
Juneau Douglas High School Yadaa.at Kalé.
Mr. Hauser briefly addressed slide 4 with prepared remarks:
In the Juneau School District (JSD) we have over 4,000
students, nine school buildings, one maintenance
facility, and 817,400 square feet of facility space.
The average age of our schools is 50 years old; 55
percent of our schools are greater than 50 years old.
3:20:27 PM
Mr. Hauser reviewed slide 5 with prepared remarks:
In FY 2025, the Juneau School District Board of
Education closed three schools as part of school
consolidation. Three buildings were released back to
the City and Borough of Juneau. The maintenance needs
I'm talking about today are after the Juneau School
District completed arguably one of the largest
consolidation plans and turned over three buildings
including the major maintenance needs for those
buildings to the city and borough.
3:20:52 PM
Mr. Hauser turned to slide 6 and provided prepared remarks:
The Juneau School District utilizes the following
prioritization guidelines and evaluation criteria when
considering major maintenance, CIP, and deferred
maintenance projects: safety, security, protection of
structure, impact on learning environment, impact on
working environment, environmental sustainability, and
aesthetics.
3:21:11 PM
Mr. Hauser addressed the major maintenance CIP list on
slide 7:
This is the major maintenance CIP list for the Juneau
School District. The top two priorities, Dzantik'i
_
Heeni and Kaxdigoowu Héen Elementary School Roof
_
replacements were currently 70 and 77 on the state CIP
list. The other four items on the list, including the
remodeling of Mendenhall River Community School, do
not even have a ranking number on the CIP list.
3:21:34 PM
Mr. Hauser moved to a photo of Mendenhall River Community
School (MRCS) on slide 8. He highlighted that the school
had the original 1983 construction and bright red carpet.
The school did not have a ranking on the CIP list.
3:21:47 PM
Mr. Hauser turned to slide 9 and detailed that MRCS was
over 40 years old and the only thing done to the building
was the installation of a new roof in 1999. He read from
prepared remarks:
There is not a secure entryway that provides monitored
line of sight for school visitors. It was built at a
different time in education and school construction
and has not been remodeled in recognition of the
changes in school safety and security, not to mention
the normal maintenance and remodeling needs after four
decades of daily student use.
3:22:15 PM
Mr. Hauser turned to photos of the Juneau Douglas High
School roof on slide 10:
This is the roof at Juneau Douglas High School
Yadaa.at Kalé, which also does not even have a ranking
on the CIP list. The roof was last replaced in 1992.
Water has infiltrated the rubber membrane and swelled
up the underlayment substructure. Leaks are frequent
and ongoing.
3:22:37 PM
Mr. Hauser advanced to slide 11 with prepared remarks:
I've just been at a joint facilities committee meeting
with the City and Borough of Juneau talking about the
possibility of a bond if bond debt reimbursement is
reinstated on July 1. With bond debt reimbursement
reinstated we would potentially be able to fix the
roof along with heating and ventilation systems across
the district, and other needed safety and security
upgrades. A researcher and economist from Yale notes
that on average bond authorization significantly
raises test scores "spending on infrastructure
renovation and upgrades, such as HVAC or roofs, raises
test scores but not house prices. Bond authorization
is most beneficial in districts with more
disadvantaged student populations..."
3:23:20 PM
Mr. Hauser continued to address bond debt reimbursement on
slide 12 with prepared remarks:
Without school bond debt reimbursement there are
competing priorities that make bonds very challenging
for communities. Local governments must balance school
infrastructure needs with other pressing issues like
public safety, road maintenance, and general municipal
services. Here in Juneau, our local government has a
massive task in addressing glacial lake outburst
floods. In addition, the municipality, like many
others, is struggling with an aging water and sewer
infrastructure system. Replacing aging piping,
treatment basins, and filtration systems is a
significant draw on local tax bases and our expenses
that can't be ignored. Assemblies only have so much
capacity, and as utility debt becomes more and more
needed, there's that much less room for anything else.
Representative Johnson asked where the photo had been taken
on the slide 12.
Mr. Hauser replied that the slide showed an aerial photo of
the Mendenhall River during the glacial outburst flooding.
He continued to address slide 12 with prepared remarks:
Without bond debt reimbursement some communities would
be better positioned to pass bonds than others,
creating equity concerns among districts. Many Alaska
school buildings are aging and require significant
upgrades. Without bond debt reimbursement, communities
may delay or downsize projects leading to higher
maintenance costs in the long run. There has only been
one school bond in Juneau since the moratorium and as
this picture depicts, we had flooding up to the school
doors with the last glacial outburst. Three of our
Juneau schools could be impacted by future glacial
outbursts.
3:24:48 PM
Mr. Hauser advanced to slide 13 JSD deferred maintenance
backlog with prepared remarks:
We've seen some images from Juneau schools already.
Like most districts across Alaska, we have a
maintenance backlog. Ours is over $7.5 million from
over a decade of near flat funding, limited funding
for capital projects, and the moratorium on bond debt
reimbursement.
3:25:06 PM
Mr. Hauser continued to slide 14 with prepared remarks:
Deferred maintenance leads to increased facilities
costs. Here are some more images from just down the
road at Juneau Douglas High School. This is the Juneau
Douglas High School boiler spewing water and an
original 1956 chimney that has failed and is starting
to collapse. There are also needs at Glacier Valley
Elementary School for a water heater as well as
ventilation and heating upgrades including coils and
computer control systems across the district.
3:25:32 PM
Mr. Hauser turned to a picture of the Dzantik'I Heeni gym
floor on slide 15. The gym was originally installed in
1994. He highlighted buckling and bubbling on the floor,
which was leading to safety concerns for students in the
building.
3:25:47 PM
Mr. Hauser turned to slides 16 and 17 and provided prepared
remarks:
I'd like to close with another comparison that is
recently being made between our Alaska students here
again in their learning environment and Mississippi.
Our Alaska student, five year old Nolan Adam Smith
says, "Let me show you why I'm so smart and my school
is so junky." But in Mississippi, as of March 2024,
Mississippi districts have spent nearly $362.6 million
on facility related priorities. The majority of this
spending amounted to $296.8 million to building
reconstruction and remodeling projects such as HVAC
upgrades and replacements, bathroom renovations, and
roof repairs. As a senior policy analyst notes,
"Though it might seem counterintuitive to focus on
facility repairs when students need instructional
support, research underscores the role of school
facilities in shaping student achievement and well-
being. Well maintained and adequately equipped school
environments positively influence school academic
performance and motivation, while inadequate
facilities contribute to absenteeism, health issues,
and diminished cognitive abilities."
3:27:06 PM
Mr. Hauser turned to slide 18 with prepared remarks:
An investment in school facilities and major
maintenance capital projects is an investment in
student academic outcomes. Research links improved
classroom ventilation and school environments with
reduced illness absences and chronic absenteeism.
3:27:19 PM
Mr. Hauser addressed increased test scores and academic
success on slide 19:
An investment in school facilities and major
maintenance impact student test scores. Improved
classroom ventilation and temperature led to an 11
point increase in mathematics scores and effects of
similar magnitude, but higher variability, for reading
scores and science scores. "Improving the school
building may well be the most overlooked means of
improving student health, safety, and academic
performance."
3:27:42 PM
Mr. Hauser advanced to slide 20 with prepared remarks:
Looking at data from a Los Angeles Unified School
District, students who attended a newly constructed
school yielded improvements in test scores and
attendance, suggesting that attending a newly
constructed school for four years can eliminate almost
half of the math achievement gap and almost 20 percent
of the English gap.
3:28:03 PM
Mr. Hauser turned to slide 21 and concluded the
presentation with words from a Yale economist:
"Increased capital spending in schools significantly
improves test scores and is efficient on average."
Mr. Hauser urged the legislature and the governor to
reinstate bond debt reimbursement program as well as
committing adequate funding to address the backlog of major
maintenance and capital improvement projects across the
state, especially in rural districts. He shared that he was
the son of an oil field rig worker who kept workers safe on
the North Slope. He quoted his father: "Pay now or pay
later." He stressed that students could no longer wait. He
stressed that every student in Alaska deserved an education
and school facility with heat and running water and roofs
and walls that protect them from the environment. He
emphasized that every student in Alaska deserved an
education in a school facility that is safe, structurally
sound, and conducive to learning. He thanked the committee
for its time.
3:28:56 PM
Co-Chair Schrage thanked the presenter. He moved to
questions from members.
Representative Tomaszewski remarked that Fairbanks had a
capital improvement project and funded schools and
maintenance. He asked if the City and Borough of Juneau
(CBJ) had a capital improvement project or facility
maintenance fund it funded annually. He noted that Mr.
DeGraw almost made it sound like Fairbanks had not done any
projects. He shared that when he had been on the Fairbanks
Assembly, it had consistently brought the school projects
up to the top of the list and got them funded out of its
own maintenance reserve account. He asked if CBJ had
similar capital improvement projects.
Mr. Hauser answered that CBJ had a deferred maintenance
fund that the school district was able to utilize annually
to address emergent needs such as the leaking boiler he had
shown in an image of the Juneau Douglas High School.
However, when looking at the totality of the deferred
maintenance capital improvement projects and costs for some
of the maintenance repairs, it exceeded the available funds
in the CBJ deferred maintenance fund.
3:30:44 PM
Representative Bynum referenced discussion about school
districts losing space due to the closure of schools. He
noted that student populations were going down. He noted
that nationally there were standards for space allocation
per student based on the grade level. He asked if JSD took
the guidelines/studies into consideration when talking
about what constituted an adequate space for students in
classrooms.
Mr. Hauser replied that JSD had undergone one of the
largest consolidation programs by closing three schools. He
explained that the enrollment numbers were a part of the
decision made by the board. There were school size codes
that limited the number of students in buildings. He
elaborated that the district made decisions to ensure there
were facilities and space to support the existing
enrollment numbers. The district had reports including the
number of students that could fit in any space (i.e.,
classrooms, gyms, music rooms), which was followed as
students were placed. When the three school facilities were
given back to CBJ, it was with the cost data. He explained
that one of the facilities, the Marie Drake building, had
some of the highest deferred maintenance costs on the
books. When the district looked at the space for students,
it was always looking to ensure it fell within the
educational guidelines.
Representative Bynum remarked that some of the districts
had talked about constricting maintenance staff. He asked
if JSD considered the cost impact that reducing one staff
member responsible for preventative maintenance could have
on major maintenance in the future. For example, in
healthcare, the continuum of care mattered. He asked if JSD
was taking the issue into consideration when making
staffing plans for maintenance staff.
Mr. Hauser responded affirmatively. In an effort to
maintain the instructional component with teachers,
paraeducators, and support staff in the classroom, often it
was the staff who were not seen everyday that were
essential to school maintenance, food service, who
suffered. The district made reductions to maintenance staff
over the years. He believed Representative Hannan had
spoken to the subject earlier in the meeting. He stated
that the maintenance staff did all of the plowing and
without sufficient staff for the job, there were safety
issues with students and staff getting to school. The
district had a fire in one of its schools the past week
when a switch burnt out in a heating system, which required
an evacuation. He stated that having staff to address the
issues and get the buildings back into shape for students
to be back in the classroom was essential. He explained
that without the maintenance staff in place to meet the
needs of the square footage it would be detrimental to
student learning.
3:34:36 PM
Representative Hannan pointed out that Superintendent
Hauser was an example of an Alaskan grown educator. She
detailed that he grew up in Anchorage, went to Anchorage
schools, and would have options to be employed anywhere.
She thought Superintendent DeGraw in Fairbanks was a high
school graduate from that district. She noted that
superintendents like that understood rural and urban Alaska
and had witnessed better days. She was grateful they
committed to staying in Alaska.
Co-Chair Schrage agreed Alaska was lucky to have the
superintendents. He thanked Mr. Hauser for his testimony.
Co-Chair Schrage handed the gavel to Co-Chair Josephson for
an announcement related to the operating budget.
Co-Chair Josephson set an amendment deadline for the
operating budget to committee substitute (CS) 1 for Tuesday
March 25 at 5:00 p.m. He provided details about the
schedule.
3:38:16 PM
Representative Johnson asked if bill version GH-14621\I was
the operating budget, and the CS 1 Co-Chair Josephson was
referring to.
Co-Chair Josephson clarified that the operating budget, HB
53, was version GH-1462\I. The mental health budget, HB 55,
was GH-1459\I.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| (H) Finance Committee DEED Major Maintenance for School Facilities Presentation (03-21-25).pdf |
HFIN 3/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| DEED FY26 School Construction and Major Maintenance Final Lists.pdf |
HFIN 3/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| Final SB237 Report 2025 HB 54.pdf |
HFIN 3/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| MEHS Deferred Maintenance Projects Status (08-2024).pdf |
HFIN 3/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| 25.3.21 JSD Major Maintenance Slides -ACSA.pdf |
HFIN 3/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| 2025 ACSA Major Maintenance - House Finance .pdf |
HFIN 3/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| 2025 LKSD House Finance Presentation.pdf |
HFIN 3/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 54 |
| House Finance Presentation Fairbanks.pdf |
HFIN 3/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 54 |