Subcommittee reviews university campus roofs, elevators and modernization requests; panel presses for bundling and alternatives

A series of university facility projects in House Bill 5 drew detailed questions from the subcommittee, with witnesses asking members to consider bundling and staged approaches while preserving historic character where required.

Key project types presented

• Roof replacements: Staff described multiple roof projects on university and statewide public buildings, including clay tile replacements that require coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office. Witnesses said older assemblies require removal of saturated insulation and structural repairs and that replacement choices must balance historic appearance and long‑term performance.

• Elevators and accessibility: Projects include elevator installations and ADA upgrades (for example, Lewis Hall and connector elevators to tie multiple campus buildings). Witnesses said exterior elevator additions were selected in some locations to avoid losing interior floor space.

• Academic building modernizations: The subcommittee heard requests for music, theater and lab modernization projects; some asks were “authority only,” meaning universities must first secure nonstate funds or donors before state LRBP funding would be available.

Lawmakers' concerns and follow up

• Costs and historic constraints: Members asked why clay tile roofs and historic preservation reviews increase costs; witnesses said the State Historic Preservation Office seeks visual compatibility and that modern materials that emulate clay are sometimes acceptable.

• Bundling and procurement: Several members urged the agencies to explore bundling multiple roof projects or standardizing building designs (for small shops or storage) to reduce per‑unit design and procurement costs.

• Authority‑only projects: Witnesses clarified that authority‑only items remain contingent on donor or federal grant funding and that the university system must have matching or auxiliary funds lined up before state construction proceeds.

Ending

The subcommittee asked agencies to provide cost comparisons, R‑value/energy upgrade details for roofs, and feasibility work on bundling and modular options; no appropriations action was taken in the hearing segment.