Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Fidel

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

2-3-06

HB

SHORT TITLE

CAPITOL BUILDINGS PLANNING

COMMISSION PLAN

SB 380

ANALYST Hadwiger

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY06

FY07

$500.0

Recurring

General Fund

$65.0

Non-Recurring

General Fund

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Department of Finance and Administration (DFA)

General Services Department (GSD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 380 appropriates $565 thousand from the general fund to the Property Control Divi-

sion (PCD) of the General Services Department (GSD) for expenditure in FY06 and FY07 to es-

tablish a master planning and asset management function for the needs of state government fa-

cilities under the purview of the Capitol Buildings Planning Commission and to obtain associ-

ated hardware and software necessary to maintain an updated master plan. The appropriation

includes funding for three permanent full-time employees of PCD to provide necessary staff

support to maintain the master plan as required of the capitol buildings planning commission and

to perform the increased asset management function required for accountability on state projects

administered by the property control division.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $500 thousand contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general

fund; $65 thousand contained in this bill is a non-recurring expense to the general fund. Any un-

expended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY07 would revert to the general

fund.

Senate Bill 380 – Page 2

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

In January 2006, the Capitol Buildings Planning Commission (CBPC) endorsed this bill as a

means of linking master planning to standards development, design and implementation and to

improve staff efficiency and responsiveness with regard to the state master plan. As approved,

this appropriation would support three full-time permanent positions—a project manager, budsi-

ness operations specialist and IT networks and computer specialist, as well as purchase software.

GSD indicated that the CBPC does not have staff to maintain updated facilities and asset man-

agement information required to fulfill its oversight mandate for state facilities in Santa Fe and

Albuquerque. GSD/PCD’s lack of effective asset management capability has been a weak link

in the master planning activities of the CBPC. As a result, periodic evaluation of overall master

planning objectives has to include update of facilities information. SB 380 will provide a more

efficient, cost-effective method for GSD/PCD to perform master planning functions.

DFA noted that PCD currently has no fixed asset or project management system. Depreciation

of buildings and improvements are calculated on an Excel spreadsheet. The federal government

has disallowed depreciation expense on more than $150.0 million of improvements that could

not be identified with a specific building. Agencies that occupy state buildings are allowed to

charge depreciation expense to federal programs. A new fixed assets management system would

allow for all improvements to be capitalized with the original construction or purchase cost of a

building increasing the amount of depreciation that could be charged to federal programs. The

CPBC does not have staff to maintain updated facilities and asset management information re-

quired to fulfill its oversight mandate for state facilities in Santa Fe and Albuquerque. The lack

of a capitol projects management system has inhibited the Property Control Division's ability to

perform efficient, cost effective master planning functions.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

GSD indicated, with a viable asset management system, GSD/PCD could provide timely and ac-

curate project and facility information as needed by CBPC. and SB 380 would allow for signifi-

cantly improved management oversight of GSD/PCD facilities and administration of GSD/PCD

capital projects. Software would allow centralized reporting to GSD/PCD management for pro-

ject status at any time. This would promote better funding decisions, better prioritization of re-

sources, and more proactive identification of poor performing projects and facilities.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

DFA reported that having an effective asset management tool would reduce staff time now spent

updating various independent tracking spreadsheets and data bases and eliminate data entry er-

rors.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

No technical issues were identified.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

GSD indicated the proposed software is an “off-the shelf” real estate portfolio and project man-

Senate Bill 380 – Page 2

agement software system used by the Public School Facilities Authority. It has been proven to

be a highly effective project management tool. This would allow GSD/PCD to replace its in-

house spreadsheets with a fully integrated portfolio management system that is web-based, se-

cure, password protected, and would be available to all GSD/PCD users and vendors. Decentral-

ized information input could be performed by project managers daily from any remote location,

provided internet access is available.

DH/mt:nt