Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Controlled Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State architect tells budget committee controlled‑maintenance needs total $249M; backlog of unaudited state buildings flagged
Summary
The Office of the State Architect told the JBC it reviewed 162 capital requests and recommends $249 million for controlled maintenance across three priority levels, highlighted a backlog of audits (about 1,700 buildings not audited in >10 years), and asked the committee to consider score‑based reductions rather than dollar‑based cuts.
Tana Lane, State Architect with the Office of the State Architect, told the Joint Budget Committee that the OSA reviewed 162 projects and recommends funding controlled maintenance across three levels totaling $249,000,000.
Lane explained OSA’s scoring criteria—life‑safety/operational disruption, risk of system failure, and criticality (1 year / 3–5 years / 5+ years)—and said projects are scored and ranked for legislative consideration. ‘‘This year, the OSA reviewed a total of 162 project requests where controlled maintenance requests averaged about $1,900,000 each,’’ Lane told the committee. She said Level 1 recommendations (predominantly life‑safety) include 59 projects totaling $109,000,000; Level 2 includes 46 projects totaling $103,000,000; and Level 3 includes 24 projects totaling $37,000,000.
Lane highlighted statutory duties (review of facility master plans and controlled maintenance) and noted a backlog of condition audits: ‘‘we still have over 1,700 buildings that have not been audited in over 10 years,’’ she said, adding audits cost roughly $85,000 each and depend on agencies requesting planning funds. Lane also discussed HB 241422 (naming in testimony as House Bill 2041422) that raised the dollar threshold for controlled maintenance and how 55 projects took advantage of the increased threshold.
OSA asked the committee that any reductions be applied on a score basis rather than by dollar amount so that projects with equal scores are treated equitably. Committee members asked follow‑ups about how projects were selected and the availability of planning funds; Lane said a small planning fund (RSA Planning Fund) is available to support facility audits but has been reduced and must be requested by agencies.
What happens next: OSA asked the JBC to use score‑based reductions if it must reduce recommendations, to preserve life‑safety projects first and to consider replenishing planning/audit resources so agencies can complete facility condition assessments.
Speakers: Tana Lane (State Architect).
