Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

General Statement

Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Estimate

Senate. The U.S. Capitol Police provided a detailed outline of their needs. The Librarian of Congress was also extensively involved
in developing the five year capital budget needs for that agency.

The objective of the five year Capital Budget was to identify all projects, including those generated from within the agency as well as those identified by clients, which would require funding during fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Using all the information collected during this process, a five-year Capital Budget has been prepared based on currently identified needs. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, a five year Capital Budget will be part of the regular budget submission to the Congress. In this manner, the Congress will be able to make financial judgments on capital improvements based on an informed evaluation of present and future cost implications and with the assurance that the agency has undertaken a rigorous examination of all related needs, both internal and those of the agency's clients. Further, it will provide the Congress with a present and future view of various programmatic and financial needs.

The Capital Budget has also been prepared with the intent of requesting planning and design funding well in advance of large renovation or construction projects. In most cases, there will be a one year gap between design and construction funding requests. This time permits necessary planning steps to take place and coordination between all involved parties. The time is also necessary for completing design, and the development of sound cost estimates based on actual design from which a budget request can be justified. This may initially delay some construction and renovation projects because only design funding is requested in fiscal year 1998. However, the value of having final design and firm cost estimates for justifying construction and renovation funding outweighs the delay.

A total of 205 projects have been identified requiring the following funding levels: Fiscal Year 1998 - $53,971,000, Fiscal Year
1999 - $68,160,000, Fiscal Year 2000 - $94,606,000, Fiscal Year 2001 - $72,726,000 and Fiscal Year 2002 - $27,993,000. To
complete all projects initiated during the five year period $36,060,000 will be required during Fiscal Years 2003-2007.

It is also important to note that funding levels for the five years reflect a fairly steady funding requirement. This means that
deferring projects requested in fiscal year 1998 adds to the funding requirement for fiscal year 1999, and spreads other requirements
further and further into the outyears - these requirements do not simply disappear.

GS.5

[graphic]

General Statement

Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Estimate

In preparing and presenting a five year Capital Budget for the first time, the Architect's office is aware that the total funding represented in the request over five years is enormous compared to past years' submissions. There are several explanations for this.

First, several of the buildings in the Capitol complex are reaching an age and condition that imply major renovation or replacement of building systems. For example, the Ford House Office Building was renovated in the mid 1970's. Now, over twenty years later, some of its building systems are reaching the end of their useful life expectancies. Various improvements are therefore recommended for the Ford Building. Similar factors affect the Jefferson and Adams Library of Congress Buildings. Building systems that were assessed in the early 1980's during development of the Renovation and Restoration project as being in good shape now require substantial improvement. Likewise, systems in the James Madison Memorial Building that were originally designed and constructed in the mid 1970's are beginning to require replacement.

Second, technology is changing far more rapidly than existing building infrastructures can support and adapt to. This is
especially true in the rapidly expanding area of telecommunications, but there is a corollary effect that is felt in any building system
that uses any sort of electronic technology for operation or support. The latter is a more subtle factor in building system maintenance,
repair and replacement cycles. The subtlety lies in building systems that operate quite well for a time on a particular version or vintage
of electronic technology. However, as these electronic systems wear out, compatible replacement components are not always readily
available. Building systems that appear to be relatively "new" may require electronic upgrades to keep them operating.

In the area of telecommunications technology, the Architect's office has been challenged in keeping pace with demands for wiring pathways, space for switchers and routers, dedicated and "clean" electrical systems, adequate cooling for all the new equipment and the like. There are several significant projects that are driven partially by demands for expanded telecommunications infrastructure capabilities. These include renovations to the Dirksen, Rayburn and Capitol Buildings. In these buildings, there are other compelling renovation requirements - sprinkler systems must be installed, for example. The design solutions for these renovation requirements affords opportunities to create the infrastructure improvements demanded by technology. These "total" renovation projects are more costly than if their scopes were restricted solely to the absolute essentials. However, if the scopes were limited, then demands for additional wiring pathways would not be met and the cost of providing or renovating each system repeatedly would be much more costly.

GS.6

[graphic]
[graphic]

General Statement

Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Estimate

Thirdly, in years past various efforts have been given to establishing a rationale for estimating a target range dollar value that should be reinvested into the buildings on an annual basis. The most recent effort based funding assumptions on three different college campus models that were similar in scope and size to the Capitol complex. Based on all three models, annual reinvestment levels approaching $50,000,000 were estimated as reasonable. When the cost of new facilities are eliminated the range of costs presented over each of the five years in this capital budget are below that funding target. Even reinvesting one percent of the approximate replacement value of the Capitol complex would result in annual investments of $30,000,000.

Over $9 million of the nearly $54 million requested in fiscal year 1998 for capital budget projects are related directly to client requests. An additional $20 million is directly related to cyclical maintenance requirements. The balance, approximately $25 million, includes upgrades and improvements to the Capitol complex infrastructure. Two projects have changed scope with resulting costs increases to meet House and Senate telecommunications needs: installing sprinkler and telecommunications in the Rayburn Building, and renovating HVAC, electrical, telecommunications, sprinklers and restrooms in the Dirksen Building. Another large project, renovation of the U.S. Botanic Garden, has come to a critical point: failure to proceed with renovation likely will lead to closure of the Conservatory to visitors and non-essential staff.

EXPLANATION OF AOC PRIORITIZATION SCHEDULE

The fiscal year 1998 budget request for the Architect of the Capitol has been prioritized as directed by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The requested items have been identified by four priority levels: "1" through "3" and one designated as "Client Request". Priority level 1 projects are considered "Critical," priority level 2 projects are "Highly Desirable" and priority level 3 projects are "Desirable." Projects that have been requested by clients, that is, the Library of Congress, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, e.g., have been prioritized as "Client Request" projects. These priorities are further defined below.

PRIORITY 1 - CRITICAL

Costs essential for the following programs: to assure the ongoing care, maintenance and operation of the Capitol Complex; to assure the structural integrity of the Capitol Complex infrastructure and buildings; to assure that programs with Congressional leadership direction are carried out; and to assure that programs essential for security, fire and life safety, and environmental and hazardous materials protection are provided.

GS.7

[blocks in formation]

Costs for highly desirable enhancements to the programs outlined in the "CRITICAL" priority level, as well as new program initiatives that would improve the delivery of services.

PRIORITY 3 - DESIRABLE

Costs for programs that are desirable to implement, but that could be deferred temporarily without interruption to current services.

CLIENT REQUEST

Costs for programs that have been requested specifically by clients such as the Library of Congress, U.S. Capitol Police, congressional officers such as the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, and so on. Although funds to carry out the projects are requested in the Architect of the Capitol's budget, the responsibility for justifying these projects remains with the requesting client.

COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES UNDER ARCHITECT

To carry out his assigned duties in the Legislative Branch, the Architect has 2,034 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees under his jurisdiction during fiscal year 1997, and that level is the same for fiscal year 1998. Employees are authorized to be compensated under the Wage-Board system, the General Schedule of the Classification Act and statutory rates. Of our annual maintenance appropriations, the cost of personnel compensation and benefits constitutes approximately 61 percent of the total for fiscal year 1998.

MANDATORY ITEMS

Each year, increases are required for "Mandatory" items. These amounts are detailed under the "mandatory" category in each appropriation's Schedule C.

Mandatory items are costs related to personnel compensation and benefits that are established, regulated or modified by law. A summary of these items and their statutory authority is provided below for reference purposes.

GS.8

[blocks in formation]

Wage-Board within-grade increases, authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5102(c) (7), 5102 (d), 5341-5349.

Within-grade salary advancements and other changes for "GS" employees, authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5331-5336.
Overtime, Holiday, Sunday Premium, and Hazardous Duty Differential pay authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5544-5546.
Night Differential pay authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5545.

Personnel Benefits

Payment to Employees' Health Benefits Fund, authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8906.
Contribution to Retirement Fund, authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8334.
Payment to Employees' Compensation Fund, authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8147.
Payment to Employees' Life Insurance Fund, authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8708.
Payment to Medicare Fund, authorized by Public Law 97-248.
Payment to Unemployment Trust Fund, authorized by Public Law 96-499.

Contribution to Federal Employees' Retirement System, authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8423 and Thrift Savings Plan authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8432.

Costs associated with the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 are factored into the annual cost of living adjustments as provided by the Office of Management and Budget. This Act adopted the concept of locality-based pay, and requires that locality specific salary adjustments be made for Federal white collar workers paid under the General Schedule in each wage area where overall Federal salary rates are more than five percent below nonfederal salary rates for comparable jobs in the same area. These salary adjustments began in January 1994.

GS.9

WAGE-BOARD SYSTEM

The employees covered by this pay system are those engaged in recognized trades and crafts and in skilled and unskilled manual labor occupations. Employees compensated under the Wage-Board system constitute approximately 80-85 percent of our total

« ZurückWeiter »