HOUSE BILL REPORT

                  HB 2076

             As Reported By House Committee On:

                       Capital Budget

Title:  An act relating to the maintenance and efficient operation of state agency and school district facilities.

Brief Description:  Creating a process for maintenance and efficient operation of state agency and school district facilities.

Sponsors:  Representatives Jacobsen, Ogden, Quall, G. Cole, Johanson, Kremen, Flemming and Eide.

Brief History:

Reported by House Committee on:

Capital Budget, January 26, 1994, DPS.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON CAPITAL BUDGET

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  Signed by 14 members:  Representatives Wang, Chair; Ogden, Vice Chair; Sehlin, Ranking Minority Member; McMorris, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Brough; Eide; R. Fisher; Jacobsen; Jones; Moak; Romero; Silver; Sommers; and B. Thomas.

Staff:  Bill Robinson (786-7140).

Background:  Several recent studies have identified a need to improve the maintenance of state facilities to increase facility longevity, protect health and safety, reduce energy consumption and prevent loss of use.

Facility maintenance is generally funded from agencies' operating budgets.  However, replacement of deteriorated facilities and failed building systems resulting from inadequate maintenance is typically funded from the capital budget.

Several state agencies have begun to implement condition assessment and preventative maintenance programs to improve the maintenance and upkeep of facilities.  Condition assessment programs systematically assess the physical condition of buildings in order to identify failed systems and items in need of repair.  Preventative maintenance programs provide a methodology to comprehensively plan for and track ongoing facility maintenance requirements.  Statewide standards and centralized reporting systems have not been established for these programs.

The State Board of Education has adopted three policies to encourage improved maintenance of school facilities by local school districts:

1.School districts are not eligible for state financial assistance to modernize school facility systems that have deteriorated due to deferred maintenance;

2.Facilities constructed or modernized after 1993 are not eligible for future state modernization assistance for 30 years; and

3.School districts must meet annual maintenance expenditure standards for buildings constructed or modernized after 1993 in order to be eligible for future state modernization assistance.

Summary of Substitute Bill:  Each state agency that owns and manages capital facilities shall include in its capital budget request for the 1995 - 1997 biennium a description of its facility maintenance and management program.  The Office of Financial Management shall adopt guidelines for the submission of the facility maintenance and management programs.  The Office of Financial Management shall convene a study group to evaluate the information submitted and recommend ways to improve the agency facility maintenance and management programs and shall report the findings to the Legislature.

Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:  The requirements for centralized reporting systems, specifications for condition assessment programs, standards for maintenance budgets, staff job descriptions and maintenance staff training programs are all deleted.  The facility maintenance plans do not apply to school districts.

Fiscal Note:  Available.

Effective Date of Substitute Bill:  Ninety days after adjournment of session in which the bill is passed.

Testimony For:  The state has invested large sums of money in constructing state facilities, and a system of maintaining those facilities will protect the investment and reduce the number of premature building repairs and failures.  Maintenance is the most efficient and cost effective use of state money for facilities.

Testimony Against:  The goal of the program is one that all can share, however the bill in its current form is too detailed and prescriptive and would create unnecessary and burdensome reporting requirements on higher education.

Witnesses:  John Fricke, Office of Financial Management (pro); Grant Fredricks, General Administration (pro); Terry Teale, Council of Presidents (con); Steve Swant, University of Washington (con); Larry Ganders, Washington State University (con); Steve Trotter, The Evergreen State College (con); David Lewis, citizen (pro); and Louise Batchelor, citizen (pro).