Interior legislators eye funding plan for new UAF science building
Published Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!JUNEAU — As the Legislature and Gov. Sarah Palin battle over funding for dozens of local capital projects, Interior lawmakers are quietly looking for a way to fund a $113 million science building the University of Alaska has wanted for years.
The biological sciences facility planned for the Fairbanks campus, dubbed BIOS, would replace 45-year-old biology labs and provide the infrastructure needed for a booming research industry, officials say.
For the last two years, it’s been No. 2 on the Board of Regents priority list, just behind major maintenance on existing buildings. But Palin didn’t include money for BIOS in her budget proposal and lawmakers haven’t succeeded in adding any.
“It’s such a big project that it’s going to really struggle for a general fund appropriation,” Sen. Gary Wilken, R-Fairbanks, said Monday. It won’t get straight cash until there’s a governor from Fairbanks, he added.
And that’s why Interior lawmakers are looking to bonds.
Palin proposed issuing two sets of general obligation bonds this year — one for transportation projects around the state and another for a “scientific crime detection laboratory” in Anchorage.
Wilken and others want to add BIOS — and possibly other projects — to make a bond package with the crime lab.
Wilken’s argument goes like this.
Bonds have to get approved by voters at a statewide election, and the public simply won’t back a $100 million crime lab on its own. But if the lab is part of a package with BIOS in Fairbanks, a health sciences building in Anchorage (the regents’ No. 3 request) and maybe some other projects, voters might go for it. “It seems like this is the opportunity to get BIOS and get a crime lab at the same time.”
That said, there are a few hurdles.
First, there is some legal question about whether a single bond package can include such different items. Wilken said legislative lawyers told him BIOS and the crime lab could probably go together because they were both science-based facilities, but there’s still some question.
Second, the bond package could balloon into a big expense. One Interior lawmaker, Sen. Gene Therriault, R-North Pole, said he wasn’t completely against the plan but had concerns about the package getting too big and about the general idea of burdening future generations with debt.
“The first question is, ‘Well, isn’t there a way to make room for these items in the capital budget?’” he said.
That’s what the university would like, too.
Pete Kelly, the head of state relations for UA and a former lawmaker, said funding BIOS with cash would eliminate the need to tie it to other projects and would allow construction to start earlier. A public vote on a bond package wouldn’t come untill the fall.
The university is still trying to get capital funding for the project, he said, and there’s talk now of splitting it up over two years, with appropriations of $66 million and $47 million this year and next year, respectively.
Kelly wouldn’t comment on the chances of getting the money, but Rep. Mike Kelly, a Republican from Fairbanks and member of the House Finance Committee, said using bonds appeared to be “the best hope” for BIOS.
And he may be right.
Rep. Mike Chenault, a Republican from Nikiski and co-chair of the House Finance Committee, said he might support a bond package with BIOS, in part because Alaskans would have the opportunity to turn it down if they didn’t like it.
“The public will certainly say whether it’s too much money or not enough money,” he said.
Palin’s level of support for BIOS is still somewhat unclear.
Earlier in the session, she questioned why the state would build an expensive new facility when the university system already needs more than $700 million for deferred maintenance.
On Monday, Palin’s budget director Karen Rehfeld, said the governor was generally interested in the project and would likely support it if lawmakers added it to the capital budget as part of an overall, agreed-upon spending plan.
“As we approached our budget, (deferred maintenance) was clearly her priority,” Rehfeld said. “But I think that she fully understands why the BIOS project is important to the university.”
Rehfeld added that she didn’t know how the governor felt about bonding for BIOS.
Wilken said he was pushing the bonding idea with the governor’s office, but wanted Rep. Kelly and Sen. Joe Thomas, a Democrat from Fairbanks and member of the Senate Finance Committee, to work the Legislature.
Thomas said he’d already talked up the idea a little and received a generally positive reaction. He also mentioned the Department of Revenue’s new projection that the budget surplus will be even bigger than previously thought.
“Hopefully, that reaction gets a little better as the state’s income increases,” he said.
For more news from the capital, visit www.newsminer.com/weblogs and look for Capital Focus.
Contact staff writer Stefan Milkowski at 388-6141.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
When is the University going to realize that asking the State for $110M to employ (literally) a handful of people is not only an egregious case of welfare but in this environment a tragic misuse of money. They really do have some nerve asking the State for 'frosting' project money while we can't even fund rail line extensions, gas line development, or alternative energy projects - Fire Island and Healy Wind to name but two that should be done already.
I have to admit that I agree conceptually with mrderik. UAF has recently built 2 new science buildings, both 2 or 3 stories high, and now they want BIOS. Why couldn't they have foreseen their needs and built a 4 or 5 story building that would have served their purposes? Do they have a viable long-term plan or are they conducting their business in a piecemeal fashion?
I thought they just got done building a science building? They could always lease the old Kmart Building it's just being used as a garage now. If we're going to tear down a building why not the Polaris. I'm sure Hollywood would pay to blow it up for us.
"North to the Future", "The Youth Are Our Future", "The Great Land" are slogans that we often hear in Alaska. With more than twice the land mass of any other state in the United States and as much coastline as all the of the the other states combined, as simple facts; it might be that we have some unique habitat, plants and animals that deserve our attention.
Now it seems, that we got the Governor and the Legislature who are falling all over each other for the bragging rights for stuffing the most loot in the sock for the rainy day. Could be a rainy day, a lot quicker if we don't know what's happening with the food we eat and enjoy. And as far as bragging about the rat hole loot, wasn't that $3,000,000. of Alaska's that just flew out the window with the Bear-Sterns flop. Might be a little better to brag about something that has positive lasting implications for Alaskan's future.
mrderik -
It may be that the building will only employ a "handful" of people (although I think you underestimate the number of professors, graduate students, research assistants, and support staff that will be employed).
However, the building will provide education and research facilities for this generation and many to come. Not only will it play an important role in educating our youth, but may be beneficial in advances in biological research that could have much further reaching benefits for Alaska, America, and the world at large.
As far as it being a "egregious case of welfare", I guess it depends on where your emphasis lies. If you want America to maintain its position as the most scientifically and technologically advanced nation, then you will have to fund education at all levels. I don't consider it welfare; I consider it wise investment for the future of our country.
akjak & alaskastoryteller -
There are many fields of science. To say "they just built a science building" doesn't cover it (that's like saying that since we have a body shop in town, we don't need a transmission repair shop). Different sciences require different types of research facilities. Each field is highly specialized.
You can think of it as store; do you want your science done walmart fashion? Or would it be better to have specialized high-quality research "stores"?
Newsreader: Thank you for your comment. I might add that; fishing, tourism and the lumber industries all will be a direct beneficiary of the research that would be conducted at the BIOS lab and teaching facility. And non-renewable industries of mining and oil/gas development will also benefit from the biological science, as opposed to the mear speculation of what may or may not be facts relevant to their industry impacts in the arctic, subarctic and OCS. The new biological sciences facility "BIOS" is a wise investment in the future. But we should pay for the facility with the money we have now and not burden the future generations with bonds, or couplings of bonds for less worthy projects.
>How much research space will BIOS provide?
"The BIOS facility will provide research labs for 18 lead scientists and an additional 170 researchers. Labs will also have associated support space for specialized equipment, freezers, fume hoods and storage for seasonal gear. On the teaching side, rooms that can accommodate between 16 and 32 students will be constructed to house all of UAF's academic biology labs..... More than 1,000 students taking biology classes will have lab sessions in this facility."
These numbers INCLUDE moving the existing biology science people into the building. So exactly how many NEW professor / scientist positions will it be able to accommodate? I don't know, but if the total is 18 Scientists and 170 researchers minus what we currently have, my guess is, not many....
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against science. I would love to have a leading edge biology sciences program in our community, why not. Our State funds are comprised of revenue from resources that (theoretically) belong to ALL Alaskans. Therefore the State should invest money in projects that either actually give a return on investment, or those endeavors which benefit ALL Alaskans. Many argue that the University SYSTEM benefits all Alaskans. And I agree, even though I don't believe the current benefit is a cost effective one. But $110M for one building to house an additional few dozen researchers and scientists, I'm sorry, but that just seems like a VERY poor use of funds...
It's not 110 million to just house a few researchers. It's 110 million to provide the basic needs for the research that's performed state-wide. However, if you're not keen on that, consider this: Construction is projected to employ 330 people in Fairbanks, and 55 in Anchorage, for four years. We're up to 573 jobs, by my count. Additionally, each one of those lead investigators will have, probably, on average 4 graduate students. That's another 72 jobs, for 645.
In conducting field research, it's not uncommon to hire field assistants from local areas - I can't find an estimate on the number of temporary jobs in this matter (which is plain odd), but I'm going to, for the sake of argument, assume every one graduate student hires a quarter of a field tech, for another 18 jobs (and that's a lowball estimate) around the state for 663.
Then there's all the jobs that research creates in support, such as purchasing materials, shipping, maintenance, etc. etc. I wouldn't even know to begin to quantify those gains, but knowing some of the bills, I'm sure it's substantial.
Then you have the 'income' of grants those researchers will bring in - let's assume they're not very successful, and each only gets an average 100k grant for each lead investigator, combined across all their projects. That's still 1.8 million a year being brought in from out of state.
Then you have the effect of increased productivity as scientists are no longer stacked like cordwood, and can more effectively get work done in labs that are capable of doing modern research.
Then you have the societal good that the research will bring...
Then you have the effect on other departments as the biology department stops chewing up /their/ resources...
But if you find none of this convincing, rest assured that you'll get your money's worth when in 20 years from now, the BIOS building is crammed full of more people than it was ever intended to house. Your `handful of researchers` will no doubt double as people are stuffed in as infrastructure ages.
I admit, I'm good at multiplication but not so good at justification. I guess that comes from living my whole life in the private sector where you have make money and create jobs in order to survive and there is no free money to support your operations. Look, State educational funding is no doubt a noble and necessary need. But in reality, we have limited funds. So here's your question - If WE got to vote - and the choice was to spend money on a brand new shiny $1,000 psf research lab OR spend the money on a facility to help house and assist our elderly so they may continue to live in our community instead of 'asking them to leave' becasue they can no longer afford to live here. How would you vote?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.