Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/31/1995 08:05 AM House STA
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HSTA - 01/31/95 Number 622 HB 81 - PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES CHAIR JAMES announced that she would roll HB 81 over to the next meeting. She also said that on February 17, 1995, is an annual meeting regarding public facilities management, which she will be attending. CHAIR JAMES read the Sponsor Statement, updated 1-9-95, for the record: The State of Alaska has 2.3 billion dollars invested in 1,717 public buildings. There is currently a gigantic deferred maintenance backlog (Deferred Maintenance list, prepared by the Alaska State Facilities Administrators. February 1993, attached as exhibit #10) for these public buildings, this is a public disgrace, our buildings are falling down around us Statewide. No new construction should be undertaken until we have repaired and maintained our current facilities to an acceptable condition. It is senseless to keep building new facilities while our current buildings deteriorate from a maintenance need to a replacement need. This bill requires: 1. All deferred maintenance is to be performed over a 15 year period on all public buildings for a total appropriation as extrapolated from the fiscal note of $251,400,000.00 ($113,985,800.00 in the first 6 years) in capital replacement costs, the sum of the dollars needed is astonishing. The fiscal note for FY 95 building operation is $61,102,700.00 and continues annually forever, adjusted for inflation at an annual rate of 3.5 percent. The operating budget has been underfunded for a long time and is the reason the deferred maintenance exists. 2. All new buildings built after #1 is complete will need to be funded by a formula program to guarantee that the new buildings will be properly maintained. The continuing problem of assuring the money appropriated for maintenance goes to the maintenance is one that we must examine and incorporate into this bill through the amendment process. Public facilities have been underfunded for many years, it is sheer folly to expect our buildings to fix themselves, and to continue to ignore this crushing need is totally irresponsible. The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is the agency I will charge with this task of repairing and replacing our public facilities including University of Alaska facilities. CHAIR JAMES said that in the analysis of the bill, all deferred maintenance on state buildings would take place over a 15 year period. All new buildings would be constructed after all deferred maintenance is completed. New construction will be funded by a formula program to guarantee that they will be properly maintained. TAPE 95-6, SIDE A CHAIR JAMES said there are horror stories about maintenance problems. The state needs operating expenses to avoid these capital expenses. Number 016 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS concurred. He served on Military and Veterans Affairs budget subcommittee last year and found that they let maintenance slip. A preventative maintenance program could take care of problems in the first instance and cost considerably less than the repairs. Number 050 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON spoke in favor of the bill, saying she thought it was a good direction for the legislature to move toward. She asked how the priorities would be set out and if it would be similar to the school districts are doing now. Number 108 CHAIR JAMES said there would be an analysis by those people who are supposed to evaluate what is the most needed. The maintenance would be brought current over a fifteen year period. Meanwhile, we would be taking a life-cost basis and in the operating budget we would be funding what that is, so we could do the keeping up while catching up. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if they would repeal the way they are handling maintenance and programs for the school districts now. CHAIR JAMES answered that there is a dispute as to whether or not the school districts are doing fine the way they are. They are doing fine with new buildings, but there is an extensive amount of deferred maintenance at this point too. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON brought up a Juneau school as a follow-up to that. The high school is in need of a new roof. Last year, they are number 7 on the priority list, and this year they are back down to 47. She was curious about how this would work, because at the school district level it seems they are in this spinning wheel. One day they are at four and next year at seven. When thinking about public facilities, which are grantees through the Division of Family Youth Services and through the Department of Public Safety, she wondered if they had considered including these into the program. CHAIR JAMES answered, "yes," and then recalled the Fairbanks Resource Center, which is a grantee of the state. They are pleading with the state for money to build their own building to avoid paying the outrageous rent they are paying; then the State could use their operating funds for the purpose that they are intended. However, Chair James pointed out that it does not work that way. It costs nearly as much to own a building as it does to rent one. This is a myth that many people hold to, but normally, the cost of maintenance is included in the rent they pay. There are advantages to owning a building, but it does not necessary save money. Number 132 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that CHAIR JAMES' statement was somewhat accurate, but he would have to debate with her some on it. When moving into a new building, maintenance would be less. When you rent a building the amortization costs are factored in as well as maintenance. In short term, they would have more money, but in long term, it might cost more. CHAIR JAMES said that there is a life cost basis for determining how much should be used for maintenance each year. If money is put aside on a life cost basis we would have the money when needed for maintenance. Number 158 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered what can be done to maintain an account for maintenance. The legislature changes every two years and the philosophy of funding also changes. Number 175 CHAIR JAMES asserted that the legislature cannot be forced to appropriate funds for anything. It is up to the legislature to do that, and every two years they are free to budget what they want. However, the public is greatly distressed with the deferred maintenance on our public facilities. If there was a provision in the statutes to allow for a formula driven amount to apply to maintenance, the general public would not allow the legislature to turn away from the issue. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inserted that the legislature would need a proposal to consider. Number 200 JOHN STEINMANN, Architect, Division of Finance, Department of Education (DOE), testified in favor of this bill. The Department of Education is an advocate of maintenance, and there are presently 163 Rural Education Administrative Areas (REAA) and 360 city borough sites. CHAIR JAMES asked about a life-cost amount calculated in the amount to do maintenance and repairs. MR. STEINMANN said the DOE advocates a plan to work on a long term life cycle basis. Number 247 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned there was money in the budget for maintenance, but it was appropriated to do other things. He was concerned that this situation might happen again. MR. STEINMANN wasn't prepared to answer that. CHAIR JAMES rolled the bill over to the next meeting on Thursday, February 2, 1995.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|