Juneau superintendent urges reinstatement of bond debt reimbursement, warns of statewide school maintenance backlog

Juneau — Frank Hauser, superintendent of the Juneau School District, told the Alaska House Education Committee on March 20 that many Alaska school buildings are aging, present safety and health risks, and that state policy on bond debt reimbursement has made it harder for communities to address major maintenance and capital needs.

Hauser described school buildings across the state as “in critical disrepair, crumbling from neglect, and barely functional as safe learning environments,” and he urged the legislature and governor to reinstate the school bond debt reimbursement program and commit additional funding for major maintenance and capital projects.

Why it matters: Hauser said deferred maintenance and deferred capital work negatively affect learning environments and cited research linking facilities improvements — particularly HVAC and ventilation — to higher test scores and reduced absenteeism.

Juneau district conditions and examples

Hauser summarized the Juneau School District’s facilities portfolio: roughly 4,000 students, nine school buildings, one maintenance facility and about 817,400 square feet of facility space. He said the average age of Juneau schools is 50 years and that 55% of buildings are older than 50 years. The district recently closed and released three school buildings as part of a consolidation plan.

Specific facility examples cited by Hauser included:

- Mendenhall River Community School (original construction 1983): no recent remodeling, no security entryway with monitored line-of-sight, and no ranking on the state CIP (capital improvement project) list.

- Juneau-Douglas High School (roof and boiler): Hauser said JDHS’s roof was last replaced in 1992, with frequent leaks and water infiltration; he also showed images of a failing chimney and boiler problems.

- Zontakahini campus gym: Hauser showed a 1994 gym floor with visible buckling and bubbling, creating safety concerns.

Hauser said the Juneau district’s deferred maintenance backlog exceeds $7,500,000. He told the committee that, with bond debt reimbursement restored, municipalities could move faster on repairs and districts could address projects that are currently stalled.

Policy context and comparison

Hauser contrasted Alaska’s situation with other states, citing the Massachusetts School Building Authority as an example of a dedicated revenue stream and rapid reimbursement process. He quoted a Yale researcher saying that “bond authorization significantly raises test scores” and reiterated his father’s advice: “pay now or pay later.”

Committee discussion and department response

Committee members asked about the CIP prioritization process, costs to prepare CIP applications, engineering support and how state policy affects rural and REA (rural education attendance area) districts. Lori Weed, DEED’s School Finance Manager, and Michael Butekofer, Juneau’s facilities manager, were present for the discussion. Weed said DEED does not currently have an alternate statewide funding proposal to present and said that engineers/architect support for districts would require a legislative appropriation. She also confirmed the department receives limited voluntary CIP submissions from districts and that a full statewide picture is incomplete because participation in the CIP process is not universal.

Hauser and committee members emphasized that some REA and borough districts lack local taxing capacity to pass bonds, increasing inequity in facility investment. Committee members asked DEED to document existing asset data and to compare Alaska’s approach with similar states to identify potential policy options.

Ending

Hauser asked the legislature to reinstate bond debt reimbursement and increase state capital support for school maintenance and construction. DEED staff said they would provide additional information on CIP participation and noted that implementing district-focused engineering support would require a legislative appropriation. No formal committee action occurred; the committee indicated an interest in continuing the facilities discussion in subsequent meetings.