Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 4/9/26, 9am

Senate Finance Committee to order today is April 9th. We're in Senate Finance Committee room in State Capitol.

With me today are Chairman Olson, Chairman Steadman,

Senator Peel,

Senator Merrick,

Senator Kaufman,

Senator Cronk, and myself,

Senator Hoffman.

The bond, the capital bill is at the printer, so we'll bypass that one and go to the.

On the other item that's on today's agenda,

which is a presentation from the Bond Reimbursement and Grant Review Committee,

I invite Michael,

you can't pronounce your name, but come forward as the facilities manager,

introduce yourself to the committee and give us the...

Report.

Through the chair my name is Aaliyah Preston and I am just here to move the slides. Heather Heineken is online and she will be presenting.

Okay.

Hi.

Good morning,

Chair Hoffman,

Co-Chair Stedman,

Co-Chair Olson,

and members of the Senate Finance Committee.

For the record,

my name is Heather Heineken.

I'm the Director of Finance and Support Services with the Department of Education and Early Development.

Online today with me I have Michael Buterkoper, our facilities manager.

I also have a committee member.

They would like to introduce,

I'll introduce them and then later when they speak we'll let them reintroduce themselves just for simplicity because we are all over the state of Alaska.

Online today I have Brandon Anania, he is a public at large member and he is with the Cusbac School District and then I also have Kevin Lyon.

who is an experienced in urban or rural school facilities member,

and he works in the facilities department at Kenai Borough School District and later joining us will be Randy Williams.

He holds a seat of a member with a professional degree and experience in school construction. He's an electrical engineer at RISC-TECH.

In addition to these members we have representative Elise Galvin,

we have Senator Clayman, we also have Larry Morris who is a member with experience in urban or rural school facilities management and currently is the planning and design supervisor at Anchorage School District and Douglas Heyman, he's a public representative and administrator at Kenai School District.

We also have a vacant position that we're working on filling right now.

Today, I will.

provide a brief overview of the bond reimbursement and grant review committee and it's commonly referred to as the BRGR or Berger committee.

Next slide please.

We always like to begin with the department's mission,

vision and purpose.

While school construction and major maintenance may not always be viewed as part of a student's daily learning experience,

they are foundational.

Our role is to provide the resources,

structure,

and oversight that ensure students have safe, functional environments where learning can occur every day.

This work directly supports the department's purpose to provide information,

resources,

and leadership in support of an excellent education for every student.

Next slide, please.

Senator,

This slide

before

highlights the

you proceed,

Senator Stedman has a question.

Are you following those guidelines and

guidelines to provide information,

refer to leadership in support of an excellent education,

we...

dealing with.

We—

With a, it says,

deed exists to provide information,

resources, and leadership to support an excellent education for every student every day.

Are you following that purpose?

Uh,

to co-chair Stedman,

uh,

Heather Hennepin for the record.

We are following that with the resources we have available to us and with the membership we have.

Senator Stedman.

No, we'll come back to that later on in the presentation because I have some doubts,

serious doubts about that issue that we're working to rectify.

Thank you, Senator Stedman. Please proceed.

All right.

Slide three.

This slide highlights the Alaska Education Challenge and the Department's five shared strategic priorities.

These priorities focus on student outcomes,

but it's important to recognize they would be difficult to achieve without safe, reliable school facilities.

Whether it's reading proficiency,

workforce readiness,

or student well-being,

those outcomes depend on environments that are operational,

warm,

and structurally sound.

Facilities are the platform that make all of this possible. Next slide,

please.

Here are a few commonly used acronyms you may hear me mention today just as a reference point.

Next slide, please.

Today's presentation will walk through the creation and history of the BRGR committee,

the evolution of the CIP application,

the committee composition in both department and committee responsibilities.

We will conclude with a summary of last week's BRGR meeting results and highlight key changes moving forward.

Next slide, please.

The BRGR Committee was established in statute under AS 1411-014 in 1993.

It established a nine-member bond reimbursement and grant review committee,

and the purpose of the committee is to review the department's CIP priorities,

make recommendations concerning grant and bond reimbursement project requests.

Develop criteria for cost-effective school construction,

analyze existing prototypical school designs,

establish a grant application form,

establish a method of ranking grants projects,

recommend to the board necessary changes to the approval process for school construction grants and projects for which bond reimbursement is requested.

set standards for school energy efficiency that minimize long-term energy and operating costs.

It provides the framework for how these responsibilities are implemented,

defining the application requirements,

eligibility scoring criteria,

and facility standards.

Together, statute and regulation ensure the process is structured,

transparent,

and consistently applied statewide.

Next

Senator

slide,

Stedman.

please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I assume that there's a list that's put together of projects around the state, much like this K-12 deferred maintenance list that the legislature uses when they put together the capital budget for schools.

So is there a statewide facilities deferred maintenance list in prioritized order?

Through the chair to Senator Stedman,

there is a six-year plan that is the statewide six-year plan that is published each year and that is the priorities that is provided to us from the school districts.

Senator Stegman?

So are you going to submit that to the Finance Committee or because I don't see a list of projects in your.

presentation.

Through the chair to Senator Stedman, that list is published annually online,

the complete list,

and then the CIP application lists are also published in November and then finalized through the process in March of each year and those are also available online.

Senator Stedman.

So this list I'm looking at here,

this State of Alaska Facilities Deferred Maintenance Prioritization list dated August 18th is what?

Approved by Facilities Council August 18th? Who's the Facilities Council?

This is Heineken.

I apologize,

could you repeat?

Can you repeat the title of that?

State of Alaska Executive Branch Facilities Deferred Maintenance Prioritization OMB submitted August 18,

2005,

approved by Facilities Council August 18,

2005.

Who is the Facilities Council?

Does it have anything to do with you?

Your sign

Thank

could okay,

you through the chair. Thank you for the clarification.

That is the list put together by the Department of Transportation.

That is separate from the school facilities list.

and if we could have our staff or somebody get a hold of that particular list so we can see it here at the table would be helpful.

Mr.

Chairman

Thank you, Senator Stedman.

Mr.

Senator Keel.

Thanks, Mr.

Chairman.

So, Ms.

Hunnington, you talked about districts submit a six-year CIP plan,

but that's not the application that leads to the major maintenance list we see ranked or the facilities,

new school facility construction list we see ranked.

Does this committee you're briefing us on today,

do they go through those six-year CIP lists, or are those just informational for the department?

Misanican

Through the chair to Senator Kiel, those lists are informational lists that are reviewed by at the district level and approved by their board and then forwarded to the state.

So they're informational for the department.

Senator Kiel

Thanks, Mr.

Chairman.

So then just so I'm clear on what you said earlier,

when you said you had a six-year list and they're published annually on the website,

what do we call those when I click around?

Through the chair to Senator Gill,

it's the six-year plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm going to pull it up and give you the title.

It's under the publications and resources,

and it's

under the application for,

nope, I'm sorry, that's the application,

that's not the published list.

I apologize.

It's under the reports to legislature and it's the statewide six-year plan is the title.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Keogh. Ms. Heineken, please continue.

All right. I believe we're on slide 7,

the BRGR evolution and key accomplishments.

And over the past 30 years,

the BRGR has established a core framework still used today.

This includes the CIP application scoring methodology and ranking process,

along with facility standards and maintenance classifications.

The committee has also developed foundational tools such as preventative maintenance guidelines,

condition surveys,

and cost modeling specific to Alaska's unique construction.

Environments may continue to analyze existing prototypical school design,

recognizing the regional diversity,

develop criteria for cost effective school construction,

and more recently have set standards for school energy efficiency that minimize long-term energy and operating costs.

These efforts have created a system that is both structured and adaptive over time.

Next slide please.

Senator Steadman.

Yeah, I'm sorry,

Mr.

Chairman,

but I'm confused today.

um and that may be just the state of being this time in the legislative cycle, but so I've got a couple of lists. I just need to get straight on how who's on first and who's on second, 'cause there's a concern of the viability of these lists and the fairness. So we have the school major maintenance list that's online at DEED, Department of Education, early development.

And they rank the school districts and and that's what we use in the creation of the capital budget for maintaining schools.

And then we have uh other lists uh like the one I'm looking at here that has all kinds of put together by apparently um D_O_T_ um that puts Mount Edgecombe and museums which are under deed

Along with all the other departments,

it looks like Department of Public Service,

you know, right on Department of Health and maintenance list of all our major facilities.

So I guess the question is, do I have a complete set of lists here or is there different lists that you referenced earlier on that I should be looking at?

Ms. Heineken.

Through the chair to Senator Sedman, the list of school facilities that I referenced earlier is the current six-year plan.

Not all of those projects or facility needs are in the major maintenance ranked list.

The major maintenance ranked list only consists of...

projects that the districts have put forward that they are ready to, that they feel they're ready to have work done.

The six-year plan is looking forward at all the plans that they need over the next six years.

So that is, that's a separate list from the ranked list.

Senator Stegman.

Okay, now are we going to have somebody from anybody from DOT to talk about their prioritized list?

At some point we need to get a picture,

Mr. Chairman, when I'm driving out, we need to get a picture of the deferred maintenance issues around the state dealing with all state assets, including schools and the major maintenance list for the grant funds for schools, which we have.

So the Finance Committee could get an overall view of the maintenance condition and have the discussion on appropriations on repairing our facilities.

So there's a six-year plan,

but we're also concerned about the one-year plan,

the funding plan is what I'm trying to drive at.

So if you could help with any of that, would be appreciated.

Ms. Heineken, do you have comments on Senator Stedman's statement?

Through the chair to Senator Stedman,

I apologize,

Senator Stedman, the only thing in the purview of the BRGR is specifically the major maintenance and school construction list that the applications received from the district,

so we would not be able to speak on the DOT list.

Senator Stedman.

And then if you can, I guess.

You're involved in the major maintenance list of schools.

Am I interpreting that correctly?

Ms. Hannigan?

Through the chair to Senator Stedman,

yes,

that is correct.

And that excludes Edgcomb and excludes museums?

Through the chair to Senator Stedman,

yes.

Thank you, Senator Stedman.

Please continue.

I believe we are on slide eight.

The application and scoring process have been refined to rely heavily, more heavily on objective data-driven criteria,

reducing subjectivity and how projects are evaluated.

We've also expanded technical guidance,

particularly around energy efficiency and project standards.

We've increased stakeholder engagement through public comment in coordination with industry professionals.

The goal has been to improve consistency,

transparency, and overall confidence in the process.

Next slide, please.

On that list,

where does health life safety issues rank among these three categories that are on the slide?

To the chair,

life safety on-house students is a priority when a school doesn't have enough room for their students and life safety is also one of those priorities.

But on-house students tend to be out life safety to make sure that there is space for all the students.

The concern that I have, and I think it's the concern of the committee and concern of Senator Stedman, who's the chairman of the capital budget,

he has to weigh and this committee has to consider his recommendations on the.

The other lists that are not under the preview of education,

in particular the Mount Edgecombe situation where

We've had numerous individuals from this committee tour that facility,

we've had the Commissioner of Education tour that facility,

and I was informed this last week that Senator Steadman took our United States senior senator to tour that facility and the conditions I think were

explained as deplorable so somehow the senator and this committee have to take those into consideration because the and we have legislation trying to fix that but it's a monumental task and it leaves a lot of interpretation to the to the individual senator in charge of the capital budget and to this committee

But please proceed.

Thank you, Chair Hoffman.

Just to that note,

I believe if we look at the SB 237 report,

which is the report that is provided to in February,

it reflects a similar scenario at many schools around the state with the overall name.

So I appreciate you guys.

taking putting the effort forward to address this need I believe we're on slide nine for the the BRGR committee is made up of nine members is defined in statute this includes the commissioner or designee which would be myself

Two legislative members,

as mentioned at the beginning of the presentation,

and six public members,

which includes expertise in construction,

facilities management,

and public representation.

The composition is intentional.

It brings together technical expertise,

policy perspective,

and public accountability to support balanced decision making.

Next slide, please.

The department's role is to implement the CIP process.

This includes reviewing district applications,

verifying eligibility,

applying the established rating criteria,

and developing the statewide priorities list.

We also ensure projects align with statute,

are cost effective,

and meet facility standards. Equally important,

we facilitate the public process.

publishing proposed lists conducting hearings and producing the annual school capital project funding report required under statute next

slide please so

looking ahead we're proposing some updates to the CIP application for FY 28

One of the most significant changes is shifting from weighted average age to a facility condition index,

or FDI.

This allows us to measure actual building condition rather than relying on age as a proxy,

which improves our ability to identify true need.

We're also increasing emphasis on life safety concerns,

ensuring that projects addressing structural issues,

code deficiencies, and safety risks rise more clearly to the top.

Next slide,

please.

Yes, Chairman.

Senator Keele has a question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I I appreciate the the shift in the points because people always uh often look at the list and try to figure out why you know playground rebuilds sometimes come in above water systems and fire code or even new roofs sometimes which is not to say kids don't need a place to play but but the prioritization um sometimes

raises some eyebrows.

Can you talk to us a little bit about the first bullet there,

about replacing weighted average age with facility condition index.

Who do—

What kind of qualifications do you need to put together the facility condition index on a school? Is that something a handyman can do? Do you need to be a licensed real estate appraiser?

a mechanical engineer,

what does that take?

Through the chair to Senator Kiel,

I'm going to ask Michael Buticofer, our facility manager,

to answer that question.

Michael, you have the floor.

For the record, this is Michael Buticofer to Senator Kiel through the chair.

The facility condition index is based off of the renewal and replacement schedule that we provide as a resource to the school districts.

The facility staff at a school district can use that form based on the age of their facility and when the last...

Time a system was was replaced say the school district school was built in 1980

Then they replaced windows in the school and in 2000 that would be reflected on their renewal and replacement schedule it's

That's that's how we're we're approaching the facility condition index at this point. It can also be part of

the district's condition assessment done by architects and engineers. So there's two ways to approach it.

Senator Kiel.

Thanks,

Mr. Chairman.

So I guess you can have architects and engineers do it, but you can also have somebody with the procurement records assess the condition of the facility.

Mr. Beautiful Worker.

Yeah, to Senator Kiel, through the chairman,

the facility staff in the district are capable of doing this, yes,

with their renewal and replacement schedule.

It's not, it's when the school is built and then when systems are upgraded in the school.

There's, and that includes roofs, windows,

the electrical system.

HVAC systems, all of those components of the school.

Senator Keough.

Senator Keele.

Thanks. That's helpful.

And then I guess the next question then would be is it flexible enough that if something's dying before its time,

maybe you've got a lemon,

maybe the contractor didn't install it right, whatever,

can it adjust for this thing probably ought to have five more years in it but it's just dead?

With the renewal and replacement schedule,

not so much, but with an assessment from an engineer, from a mechanical engineer,

that could be adjusted.

Mr. Kale.

Senator Kale.

Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just,

you know, I appreciate that the department is trying to make some improvements and one of the goals.

I think last time we talked about this ought to be to make sure the districts that have very limited resources can can compete fairly for the dollars based on the actual conditions on the ground so um food for thought. Thanks.

I totally agree. Thank you, Senator Keel. Senator Stedman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just was wondering at what point we're gonna have the discussion with the larger more affluent communities.

Which I have some in my district that could pre-fund their major maintenance and then submit to the grant list automatically get ranked very high because the project's done or near done and paid for.

And then leaving the poorer communities,

which I have several of those also.

that don't have the facility or don't have the financial capacity to go in and fix some of the issues in their schools and resubmit. They've got to get on the list and wait and wait and sometimes years on the list and then finally run out of money and can't even reapply. So how do we rectify that and what's your thoughts on the issue of

of pre-funding and building these maintenance issues and then submitting to the list.

Mr.

Buttaforker.

To Senator Stedman through the chair,

that's what we're working on to make this available to all districts.

Wouldn't we like to think that we have a process that will accommodate those projects that need help,

like a boiler system or a roof that's leaking.

That's what the process is for,

so that those projects will get addressed.

As Heather Heineken mentioned,

the...

The life safety portion of the application addresses those issues and that's how.

So I believe the system does work for those projects that need to get addressed.

Senator Steadman.

I believe the system doesn't work and needs to be improved and I appreciate you guys looking at it to improve it because clearly there's many schools that small schools

that are in very significant deterioration status that don't have the capital available to even continue to reapply, and some of them have been on the list for years, so I'd like to also make a recommendation, Mr.

Chairman, if I could.

When I when we get the submitted list and it shows the ranking,

it would be nice to know how many years these individual projects have been on the list.

We've had previous testimony where some projects have been on for a decade or even longer possibly,

so that would be helpful when we look at the list.

Sorry,

again, do you have comment on that statement?

Yeah, sorry,

I didn't mean to interrupt through the chair to Senator Sedman.

We are working through the list to try and compile the

The years they've been on the list,

one challenge we come across with that is the application change so it starts as a boiler project and the next year they may reapply with an envelope project.

or something similar where now it's a different project so we're working through to try and identify and provide that information to you to get the most accurate reflection of that and to your previous question we briefly touch on on this on slide 12 about the pre-funded projects or the reimbursement projects

We are working on that.

We are trying to identify something that can help us know the capacity of different districts so that without trying to find the right approach.

that can meet that and so one of the things that we did do is we redistributed the points for the application to support districts that may not have the resources to fully develop projects to later design stages.

So we lowered,

we changed the standards a little bit to even out the playing field so that not to punish those who are doing good work, but also to help support those who are in need.

So to Senator Stedman's comment that the system needs to be improved.

I've had joint meetings with the Commissioner of Education, with the senator in charge of the capital budget,

and she conveyed to the two of us, and we can verify that, that the system is broken.

So if the Commissioner of Education feels that there needs to be improvement,

how can U.S. testifiers say that the system is working?

To Chair Hoffman.

I would say that we are working to improve the system.

I don't know that we will find a perfect system with continued limited funding and the resources available in the state. I don't know that we will ever be able to address all the need until that portion of it is.

is it's two-handed where when the project I don't believe we have a full scope of what's out there because people don't apply for different reasons.

We're gathering that information as well.

I believe that with the situation we have, the fiscal situation we have, and the district's efforts,

the lists are solid.

We have went through and reviewed and analyzed.

that that they truly do reflect the best project to support and during our discussion last week it was stated that sometimes projects aren't quite ready and so that's another component that we're looking at.

districts and they may never be ready because the districts don't have the resources to get them to that point so there's a lot of complexities in this but with all the different pieces and components we're working really hard to try and have a transparent process that people can stand behind that the districts trust in and that the communities can support.

Senator Steadman.

Let me, Mr.

Chairman, if I could just be a case in point that we're struggling with this year.

So last year we took a look at the list,

we made our funding call,

I think we funded the top ten or eleven, something like that here at the table.

And then there was, the governor adjusted it,

which is in his authority and we respect the governor's authority.

He vetoed it up to the top three projects,

which is fine.

So those three projects come off the list.

And then those that were on the list last year assume that they're probably going to move up three positions.

And that's, I don't think that's a,

you know.

You know, I think that's a reasonable expectation,

assuming that there would be no other schools applying,

which is a false assumption, of course, and everybody realized that. So you got the new schools that apply this year for this list, and then now this year there's a brand new school out of Galena.

for $36 million in number two position.

And the concern I have with the way the list is being run is two major points.

One we just touched on is the pre-funded one,

and the other one is when a big expenditure like this just appears in number, you know, at the top of the list and removes...

Many, many, many smaller schools that are way down the list on a lot smaller amounts that they may be looking at, at a, you know, million,

four hundred and four hundred thousand range,

six hundred thousand range,

you know, things like that,

three million range.

It's abnormal in the list to be in the 20,

30,

40 million range.

Galena number two is 36 million.

There's a school in the lower Kuskokwim 28 for 55 million.

There's another one in Fairbanks for 37 million.

Those are the biggest ones on the list by far.

So the concern with this year's list is all of a sudden we've got this 35 million dollar plug in number two position and it just

you know moves everybody down to down the scale so I think you should think about some of those issues when you're looking at repairing the process that's going to be undertaken next year

Thank you, Senator Steadman. And I think that brings up the question as to whether or not we build a completely new school when we're talking about renovating an existing structure for $35 million.

There's increased...

efficiencies of heating and a lot of other issues that could be addressed if we talk about constructing something completely new and removing a 35 million dollar major maintenance issue that basically drowns out all the other projects on the list I'm wondering if if that was ever

Taken into consideration by the committee when Galena was added to the list.

To Chair Hoffman,

yes,

when projects are reviewed,

the department,

we have three reviewers that are on staff within the department.

To review the application,

they looked at the space that they qualify for based on their number of students,

they look at the overall project,

and specifically one of the projects that was mentioned,

number,

I think it's 28 in the lower Cuscacuib, that that one was applied for as a new school, but

But it fit more on the major maintenance list because of the type of the project.

So we evaluate each project individually and look at what it is and whether it belongs on school construction or major maintenance. And the statute gives the department the authority to be able to make those adjustments as necessary, and we do.

To Senator Stegman's point about the assumption that,

and you didn't use the word assumption,

that's my word,

the expectation that if you're number four, five, and six that you would move to the top,

that is an ongoing challenge because it is an annual process and second school is a good example of that where

The school that was in number one would have assumed that they were going to be number one again the following year and then a school burned down so that immediately moved them to the top of the list. And so we are mindful of that and with the school construction specifically that gets challenging because when there's...

only a portion of the funding allocated in this list shifts the following year they may not get the needed funding the next year because a school like seven comes and moves right into the top spot so so those are those are all concerns that we have at the department as well and we we do recognize that challenge

And I also would like to mention that this year we were able to fund some additional projects through some last funding and different things.

So we,

even though the appropriation only got through.

Project 3 on the major maintenance list,

we were able to fund through Project 6 on the major maintenance list in 2026 just through the,

because those funds lapped back into the major maintenance funds and not back into the general fund,

so we did apply those to those additional projects.

So we are working hard to get as many projects.

funded and completed as possible.

Senator Stedman.

Well, Mr Chairman, I've sat here many years, along with several several of us here at the table, but I don't ever recall a community complaining being bumped down the list because another community had a school burnt down or they had a major flood and a building washed away.

Stuff like that is I've never seen that.

I think the school districts

reasonable in their expectations that when there's a severe emergency like a school burning down that that's going to get addressed they're not going to have to wait years and years but on the deal with Galena as an example and there's several of these schools so I'm just going to use Galena as an example but we've been told that the schools will apply for the major maintenance

Because their footprint doesn't get adjusted,

and if they were to apply for replacement of the school,

they would be sized for their student count, basically, and their needs.

So they don't want to go in and have a smaller building built.

They fix up the old building.

So I think that needs to be looked at. And from what I recall in your testimony,

you have the authority to do that adjustment.

Is that correct?

Ms. Heineken.

Through the chair to Senator Stedman, yes,

we do have that authority to make that adjustment.

So thank you, Senator Stedman.

Ms.

Heineken, please proceed.

Thank you.

I believe we're on slide— we're on slide 12, and I'll just finish that one up.

The additional changes we focused on are improving how we evaluate project scope and accessibility.

We introduce more consistent analysis of space utilization to ensure facilities are appropriately sized for student populations and we're also redistributing points within the application to better support districts that may not have the resources to fully develop projects to later design stages and this is to help level the playing field and ensure smaller or rural districts can compete more effectively for funding.

So next slide please.

So historically and as we move forward the DRGR has continued to evolve to maintain fairness transparency and cost-effectiveness.

The proposed changes for the FY28 application period are intended to better reflect the realities of the aging infrastructure across the state,

address disparities between districts.

ensure that the highest risk and highest need projects are prioritized.

And with that I would just like to thank you for this opportunity.

We do have some members online that if we have questions for them we're all happy to answer those questions.

Thank you for that presentation.

Do members of the Senate Finance Committee have questions for Ms.

Heineken?

Thank you, Senator Hoffman. Ms. Heineken,

thank you.

And through the chair,

do you see any benefit to doing this list every two years versus every year?

Mr. Sinegan.

Through the chair,

I don't know that I have enough expertise to make that recommendation.

It's certainly something we could look at and see what that would do to the outcome.

So I don't have a recommendation on that.

Senator Merrick.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I just think some of these applications are so expensive for schools that to produce an application every year is cost prohibitive for some schools. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Merrick. Senator Kaufman.

Thank you. My question is with respect to building new schools.

If there's any progress,

excuse me, if there's any progress in developing like standard build something

We can do lower cost modular fabrication now. When I was in the construction business,

we used a lower cost by doing standardized builds of modular components.

Are there any opportunities like that that we're exploring?

Ms. Heineken.

Thank you for the question through the chair to Senator Kaufman.

We do continue to look at prototypical schools.

The committee,

I have committee members if they want to speak to it.

We do look at that. One of the challenges we face is

the, the, the various climates around the state so we can't have one model we have to have multiple and those must be reviewed every couple of years due to code changes and things of that nature so but if you want more details I'm certain I have someone online that could answer that with

Senator Kaufman.

more detail.

Thank you. Yes, if you could send a link, I'd like to see that.

I'm interested in construction and how we can drive down operating and construction costs by better builds.

This time I'd give the other members of the committee an opportunity to make statements to the Finance Committee.

Please identify yourself and give us your thoughts.

It would be greatly appreciated.

Through the Chair,

this is Kevin Lyon. I am on the Bond-Free Enforcement and Grant Review Committee,

and I have experience in urban and rural construction,

also with the Kinetics School District.

And essentially,

as we're looking through these lists,

we review the...

The allocation process to make sure that it's fair across the district that it picks up the different pieces.

On your question on the prior design,

there is points available.

Not many can get that,

but there is points available to try to have districts consider the reuse of projects.

With that, I worked on this process. I think my first application was in 2002 that I have put together,

so I've been doing it a while.

I feel today that we have a very transparent process.

Sometimes we want to be able to pick up every different kind of project that could possibly come up from the district or districts,

and so we look at it and do minor tweaks of improvement to try to make sure that

the outcomes are reasonable and cover all different types of projects which some may score emergency points some may score unhoused students

others may have life safety concerns and also we also look at the if they should be on the school construction list or if they should be on the major maintenance list so I think it's a good transparent process and as we make minor changes you sometimes get results that might not be what you expected and then we correct that the following year this is my second term on the BRGR

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Mr.

Lyons. It's a great opportunity for members of the committee to make their statements to the Senate Finance Committee.

Do we have any other committee members that would like to speak at this time?

If I may chair,

this is Branson from Indiana with Gus Buck School District.

Just as a member of the BRGR,

I would like to echo some of the last comments and the BRGR tries to create a transparent process that really gives everybody an opportunity. The hard part is, you know,

that working into every situation.

Some of the times, as was mentioned,

you know, it's more effective to make a small change with a large change can completely change how the application process works.

DEED, I believe, does a great job with the resources they have trying to get scoring those applications and part of

Really the BRGR is to create that process so it takes out as much bias as we can out of the process and that's really the core of BRGR and if there's something I can stress kind of to the committee I would like to kind of push a baseline funding.

I think that's one of the biggest things that right now most of the smaller districts struggle with.

They understand the process,

at least some of them do,

but you have to effectively use the funds you have to score as well as you can.

Galena was mentioned.

They sat on an application,

made sure they had the application done right,

and then put all their effort.

into it and that's having done that process in the past I understand how you can go from you know not on the list the top of the list and that's because you get all your ducks in a row and put a lot of effort into it because you realize there's a very infinitive amount of money that is

seems to be given out at the end of the year and if you're not at the top of the list your chances of recovering those costs you put into that project are extremely limited so that's really I realize the process seems broken but I don't think it's broken as much as people aren't as encouraged to

apply because of the limited returns and if you're not seeing returns I think

The end of the year done everything we can to include as many communities, but some of the times even I've looked at, you know, hey, do I put this on this year or do I hold,

do I wait?

And it's all about most effective return on that investment and you want to see things happen for your school district but at the same time if the opportunity doesn't seem like it's going to be there you kind of punt for another year that you think you have a better chance.

So that's, I appreciate the committee's time and thank you.

For the committee's information,

can you explain the, the Kuspuk School District,

where, where it is,

and how many communities are in the Kuspuk School District?

Kuspuk School District is along the Kuskokwim River,

upriver about 120 miles from Bethel.

We encompass from Kalskag up to Stony River,

we've got about 300 students. We have been

the school district with not only Antioch Gym that's collapsing,

but also the Sleep Nuke project that was on the list for a long time.

So I do have a great understanding of, you know, some of the needs in the rural areas.

And we have a lot of needs in Cusco.

Next year we'll be working very hard for an effective replacement for the Antioch gym and also we last year put in an application for a new facility in Sleepmute that also kind of ran into the square footage considerations with the department and we were able to work through that.

Um, but yeah, that was one that, you know, do you put— much like Melina,

um, you know, do you repair the existing facility or build new?

And to build new to one of the members,

I'm sorry if I don't— I, I don't have the name right in front of me. I think it was

Oh, oh, I'm sorry, Kiel.

Kiel had

Спасибо.

mentioned, uh, construction. Um, uh, the small space subcommittee really looked at how we looked at project square footage, um, so that we could include SIP panels. I'm a huge fan of SIP panels, having worked in construction in the past myself. Um, quicker build times, modular stuff is another aspect to look at.

But yeah,

just touch on that as well. I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do any other committee members have comments for the Finance Committee at this time?

If not,

Senator Cronk and then Senator Stedman.

Thank you, Mr.

Faraday. I want to highlight the fact that there's so many more efficiencies we have today.

Chair.

I want to make sure that when we're building,

especially like the prefab, I can watch a three-bear store throw up a store in a couple months with the prefab panels and they're using those for a reason and a lot of those are built right in their state,

so it's a benefit to be using those things.

But when are we going to like centralize heating units and air handling units because we build new buildings and they're all different and being efficient in 2019 I was working on the construction part of the state and we actually did a remodel on a bus barn that cost like three times as much as if we just built a new one.

But since it was labeled a remodel, we had to do everything and it would have saved the state, you know, probably a couple million dollars instead of refurbishing this thing.

A new building would have been more efficient. So I just want to make sure that we're, you know.

We have limited dollars. We're going to have to be spending hundreds of millions, probably billions of dollars over the next 10, 20 years to fix things. And I want to make sure that every dollar is spent well and the buildings we put up are very efficient.

So thank

Thank

you.

you, Senator Cronk, Senator Stedman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just did the last testifier, I think just made the case in point for Galena where you have a cash-rich school that could afford to bring in the

necessary professionals to put in a very high quality finalized application and jump clear to number two and it really

To his testimony really disadvantages the other schools that they talked about up the Cussock when that don't have those financial ability.

There's no way they could get up to the top of the ladder,

especially when, you know, as the testimony was that they recognize that only the top handful of schools are going to get funded every year.

This year we're trying to do a lot more, but we'll see what, you know, comes out in the end.

But that was just a case in point where the system needs to be adjusted.

Thank you, Senator Stedman.

Further questions from the Senate Finance Committee?

Closing comments, Ms. Heineken.

Thank I want to thank you guys for your time you guys have a hard job and limited resources our community appreciates it the department appreciates it and the school districts and specifically the students in the state appreciate all your efforts to help support them.

Thank you. That concludes the meeting this morning. The next meeting is scheduled for this afternoon at 1.30. We will be taking up House Bill 78,

Retirement Systems.

With that, we are adjourned.