Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/11/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB89 | |
| SB137 | |
| SB74 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 74
"An Act creating the University of Alaska building
fund for the payment by the University of Alaska of
the costs of use, management, operation, maintenance,
and depreciation of space in buildings; and
authorizing the Board of Regents of the University of
Alaska to designate buildings for which the fund is to
be used."
9:04:59 AM
HEATHER SHATTUCK, STAFF, SENATOR PETE KELLY, testified that
SB 74 would create the University Building Fund (UBF) as a
special account in the general funds. She stated that it
was modeled after the Alaska Public Building Fund, which
had been operated successfully by the Department of
Administration (DOA) since 2000. She shared that currently
there was approximately $1.2 billion in backlog maintenance
for the University's 7 million square feet of facilities.
She said that the University was shifting to long-term
strategic planning to adequately address the ongoing
maintenance issue. She relayed that the UBF would be one
tool to arm the University to do its part in order to get
out from under the billion dollar problem and ensure that
facilities were properly taken care of while bringing down
the deferred maintenance to a responsible and sustainable
level. She related that the fund forced departments to
fully think through every square inch of space that was
actually necessary. She said that with the UBF the
University could begin charging departments for rent,
encourage improved space utilization, and see efficiencies
in operations. She shared that collecting rent from tenants
and departments was an important feature of the fund and
part of the rent could come from federal grants that the
University already received and designated of portion of to
be used for maintenance. She furthered that the concept
would allow the University to first list new buildings and
those under 15 years of age. As older buildings were
rehabbed through renewal and replacement, and deferred
maintenance, they would be added to the fund so that they
did not backslide into the same situation again. She
elaborated that the model of charging for space had been
implemented at several large universities across the United
States and experience had shown that it improved internal
discipline, leading to improved space utilization and
efficiencies in operation. She spoke to the letter from
Legislative Legal clarifying that it did not create a
dedicated fund (copy on file).
9:09:05 AM
PATRICK GAMBLE, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, testified
that the University sought a paradigm change with regard to
the way to programmatically examine ways to address
deferred maintenance, buildings on the verge of being put
on the deferred maintenance list, and operations and
maintenance costs. He said that when the deferred
maintenance cost got so big that failures occurred,
operations and maintenance money had to be used to fix the
problem. He stated that there were 174 academic buildings
in the system, 8 of which would cost more to fix up than
they were worth and should be torn down. He opined that it
cost a lot to tear down a building but that it cost a lot
more not to. He related that there were 28 building with a
low net asset value, but the function inside the buildings
had a high University value with regard to education and
research. The deferred maintenance backlog for those
buildings was $300 million, the renovation and repair (R&R)
backlog was $100 million. He explained that those were the
main campus buildings, mostly in Fairbanks, and once
building of this kind went into deferred maintenance the
risks involved in working in the buildings increased. He
shared that in the past they University would come before
the legislature each year and attempt to break the work
that needed to be done into categories; only 10 percent of
what was asked over the years had been given to help with
the problem.
9:12:51 AM
Mr. Gamble expressed enthusiastic support for the
legislation. He noted that in a tough budget year, like the
on the legislature currently faced, the seed money to start
the fund would be problematic but had to begin sometime. He
stressed that there were many different sources available
for funding: excess capital appropriations, donations, and
rental income. He suggested that online classes could
lessen the need for academic buildings. He believed that
there would not be much money put into the fund in its
first year and it could take up to 5 years before the fund
was fruitful. He said that each year the legislature would
have the appropriation responsibility, while the University
sought different sources for the fund. He thought a source
could be the Alaska Sovereign Education fund. He shared
that the fund used an education funding source from oil
royalties being diverted into an education account.
9:18:51 AM
Representative Holmes wondered whether there had been
discussions about putting any seed money in the fund in the
present year.
Mr. Gamble replied in the negative.
Representative Holmes asked whether the fund would be
managed for sustainability.
Mr. Gamble replied that it would have an inflation proofing
element to it and that sustainability was a goal.
Representative Holmes she spoke of the Alaska Children's
Trust as a sub-account of the general fund. She thought
that the legislature should encourage private donations but
wondered whether people would donate if the fund was part
of the general fund.
Mr. Gamble answered that a lot of advice would be needed in
order to lock down the actual components of the idea.
9:23:19 AM
Representative Thompson expressed concern that donations to
the building fund could have a negative effect on donations
to other University departments.
Mr. Gamble answered that it was a possibility. He relayed
that many donors were specific with regard to their
donations. He said that unspecified donations would be
considered for the fund.
9:26:27 AM
Co-Chair Austerman assumed that the fund could handle any
component.
Mr. Gamble did not think that using the fund to build new
buildings was part of the plan; operation and rehab,
certainly, but the capital cost of building a new building
would deplete the fund.
Co-Chair Austerman thought that lapses in funding could be
problematic.
Mr. Gamble stressed that the initiation of the fund would
concentrate on newer buildings that had less cost
associated with the maintenance.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about appropriations from
endowments. He noted that if they were not specifically
mentioned in the appropriations language then they could
not be accepted. He thought that perhaps the language
should be added to the bill.
9:31:07 AM
Mr. Gamble said that they had the ability to track specific
buildings, if a large project came up a few million dollars
short those dollars could be used to fund something else
and would be included as candidates to be put into the fund
for broader use.
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether the result of
Subsection 10 on page 2 would allow the University to
reconfigure space on campus that could be leased out and
allow for maintenance and operation outside of the normal
University budget.
Mr. Gamble answered in the affirmative.
9:34:02 AM
Representative Edgmon asked for the definition of
maintenance versus "depreciation related to space in
covered buildings."
Mr. Gamble explained that the notion of building
depreciation was central to the whole idea of R&R, every
single year a building aged. He said that the definition of
"covered" meant buildings that were specifically occupied
for research or academics. He said that the depreciation,
opposed to a financial depreciation, was related to how
quickly the building was aging. When the buildings were
analyzed and categorized an assessment was made as to how
far it had depreciated from its original construction, this
gave an idea of the net asset value of the building which
was then compared to the R&R required to re-age the
building, and then the depreciation on the started over
from where it had been re-aged.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if assurances could be given that
deferred maintenance or improvements would not be construed
as allowing new construction.
Mr. Gamble believed that the integrity of the assessment of
deferred maintenance was fundamental to the trust that
dollars were being used as intended. He said that the
poster child for deferred maintenance was the power plant
at the University of Fairbanks, the entire structure had
aged out of its useful service life. He relayed that most
of the deferred maintenance would be smaller issues.
9:38:17 AM
Representative Holmes noted that the account was a sub-
account of the general fund and would not allow the
University to use it as a checking account. She advised
that the legislature maintain control of appropriating the
money from year to year.
Vice-Chair Neuman assumed that the fund would be under the
control of the Board of Regents or the University
president. He wanted to ensure that the university would
have the autonomy to determine where the funds would go. He
did not want individual legislators to have the ability to
designate what the money would be spent on.
Mr. Gamble replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked whether the legislature would have
the ability to amend their appropriation.
Mr. Gamble did not believe he would have the authorization
to make the decision.
9:40:54 AM
Representative Holmes believed that the legislature would
had the power to amend the appropriation.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that there had been some questions
and suggestions related to changes in the legislation. He
relayed that the committee would look at the issues and
hear the bill at a later date.
SB 74 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 74 - Back up Documents.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 74 |
| SB 74 - Dedicated Fund Question Legal Memo.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 74 |
| SB 74 - Full Text.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 74 |
| SB 74 - University Response to Questions from 4.4.13.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 74 |
| SB 74-Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 74 |
| Sectional Analysis for SB 74.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 74 |
| SB 137 Annual Report 2013.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 137 |
| SB 137 ASHSC Strategic Plan.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 137 |
| SB 137 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 137 |
| SB 137 Supp Letter RobertScher.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 137 |
| SB 137 Written Testimony John Aho.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 137 |
| SB 137 Leg Audit Report.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 137 |
| HB 89 CS WORKDRAFT FIN P version.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 89 |