Answer: On a statistical basis, numerous studies would say that three to five percent of current replacement value on average would arrest the deterioration of the facility condition (roughly $15 million). 24. Question: What amount would be required on an annual basis to reduce the backlog by five percent a year? Answer: Without a complete assessment and data analysis this would be difficult to ascertain. It depends on the age and condition of the infrastructure. We cannot provide a definite figure, but are working toward collecting the data and cost information needed to develop a long-range capital renewal program for all Gallery infrastructure. 25. Question: What is your long-term plan for addressing the most critical needs? Answer: Having now completed the initial condition study of the Gallery's East and West Buildings' exteriors and, following more detailed probes of these areas during fiscal year 1996 to more precisely determine necessary repair methods, we will complete an extensive survey of our buildings' mechanical and electrical systems during fiscal year 1997. Taken together, these studies will provide us with the necessary data to set more precise project-by-project priority plans and timetables for completing the identified repairs in a manner that best protects people and collections and causes the fewest disruptions to the ongoing programs and exhibits available to our visiting public. SKYLIGHTS AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 26. Question: The budget request for repair, restoration and renovation assumes you will devote nearly 90 percent of that appropriation in fiscal year 1996 to two projects; namely, the west building skylights and fire protection systems. What other major critical projects have been placed on hold or significantly downsized for fiscal year 1997 in order to fund these projects? An Answer: For fiscal year 1997, an amount of $5,942,000 has been requested for repair, restoration and renovation of Gallery buildings. amount of $5,250,000 or nearly 90 percent of this sum, will be devoted to the West Building Skylights ($4,500,000) and the Fire Protection System ($750,000). As a result, the major critical project that has been deferred from fiscal year 1997 to at least fiscal year 1998 is the Structural/Exterior Repairs and Restoration project. An amount of $650,000 had been targeted for repair of the structural support and marble steps located on the Mall-side of the West Building that have settled about one inch, creating a safety hazard. The waterproofing membrane has deteriorated with time, and water is now leaking through to the supporting structure below. An additional $250,000 would have corrected deterioration of the West Building moat walls flashing. This would stop water seepage into office and garage areas. A detailed structural engineering study and preliminary assessment indicates the need for excavation around the base of the northeast and southeast corners of the moat walls so that the necessary structural and waterproofing repairs can be completed. A further $100,000 would have been used for design work necessary to initiate other building structural exterior repairs identified in an exterior study of the Gallery's East and West Buildings completed in fiscal year 1994. 27. Question: To what extent could funds be diverted from the $4.5 million you have targeted for skylights to fund other critical projects? Answer: The contract for replacement of the West Building Skylights is underway. Each phase is scheduled based on a funding profile, and delay costs would be incurred if the options were not executed as planned. In addition, slowing the replacement exposes the Gallery to greater risk of catastrophic skylight failure. We do not believe diverting funds is appropriate or viable. In requesting funding for the West Building Skylight project, we have been careful to emphasize that this project involves exposure of this national historical building to the outside elements. In order to limit damage to the building, as well as avoid substantial additional cost that would be necessary were we forced to stop and then restart construction, we strongly recommend continuing the established construction schedule and funding plan that calls for $4,500,000 being available for this project in fiscal year 1997. 28. Question: How much has been appropriated to date for the skylight project? Answer: Through fiscal year 1996 an amount of $7,540,000 has been appropriated for the West Building Skylight project. 29. Question: What is the total estimated cost for this project? Answer: The total estimated cost of the West Building Skylight project is $19,300,000. 30. Question: When will the skylights project be completed and what are the outyear requirements, by year, for funding this project? Answer: The West Building Skylight project is projected to be completed in fiscal year 1999, assuming the following out year funding requirements will be met: 31. Question: Last year you received $700,000 for fire protection systems. How are these funds being used? Answer: The fiscal year 1996 funding that the Gallery received for the Fire Protection Systems project permits replacement of the existing obsolete fire detection system components in the remaining half of the East Building and the installation of additional fire system components in the West Building basement and ground floor. Replacement of obsolete fire detection system components in the first half of the East Building and connecting link as well as the installation of detection system components in the West Building attic and main floor galleries began in fiscal year 1995. 32. Question: What is the total estimated cost of this project? Answer: The total estimated cost of the Fire Protection Systems project is $5,300,000. 33. Question: How would you use the $750,000 for fire protection systems included in the fiscal year 1997 budget? Answer: Funding being sought for fiscal year 1997 will permit the installation of additional fire detection systems in the East Building and connecting link and replace the obsolete fire alarm bells. We will initiate the fire protection upgrade in seven art store rooms that currently do not have fixed fire suppression systems. 34. Question: What would be the impact of providing less funding for this project and stretching out this effort? Answer: Providing less funding for this program and stretching out this effort would further delay, with attendant risk, bringing our two landmark buildings up to the current fire codes. Also, obsolete equipment and systems would remain in place longer, further subjecting us to the possibility that already scarce replacement parts will not be available when needed, rendering the system inoperative and placing the Gallery's collections at risk. Additionally, the replacement of Halon fire suppression required by EPA could not be phased out as scheduled. 35. Question: When do you expect to complete the fire protection systems upgrade and what funding level will be required in fiscal year 1998 and each subsequent year in order to meet that scheduled completion date? Answer: We expect to complete the fire protection systems upgrade in fiscal year 2001. The following funding levels will be required in fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001 in order to meet this scheduled completion date: 36. FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 Question: $1,200,000 500,000 995,000 REPAIR, RESTORATION AND RENOVATION PRIORITIES For the record, please provide a list, in priority order, of your repair and renovation backlog, including estimates by project. Answer: Those renovation and repair projects identified in our request to the Office of Management and Budget, but not included in our current request, are viewed as our primary backlog of projects for fiscal year 1997. These projects are listed in priority order as follows: Upon completion in fiscal year 1996 of additional probes and investigations following a fiscal year 1994 study of the Gallery's East and West Buildings' exterior structures, and based on a fiscal year 1997 study of our buildings' mechanical and electrical systems, we will have more precise project-by-project indicators and timetables necessary to address our backlog of repair and renovation requirements. Among those projects already identified and accorded high priority within the overall estimated $21 million Buildings Structural/Exterior Repairs and Restoration project are the following: Waterproof Below Grade, Phase II, West Building Roof Membrane/Plaza Renovation Exterior Stonework Caulk, East Building & West Building TOTAL $ 620,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 4,425,000 $7,545,000 24-697 96-31 Institute of Museum Services Director Diane Frankel House Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies FY 97 Appropriations Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee. While I recognize that we all must join forces and find ways to cut our budget deficit by doing more with less, I hope that as you enter deliberations this year you will consider the tremendous contribution museums across the country have made to this effort thus far. I'd like to tell you how museums throughout the United States will be affected by the proposed 27% cut in the Institute of Museum Services FY 1996 budget. Because fully 94% of the IMS budget goes directly to museums - with only 6% for IMS administration costs - a cut to IMS is felt most at the local level. This year IMS anticipates making 200 fewer grants. Because IMS does not provide on-going support for any institution it is difficult to identify which local communities will be affected. However, throughout the country there will be museums that are less prepared for the next natural disaster; families, children and teachers seeking the enriched learning environment of a museum who will find fewer services; collections care activities that will be deferred and small museums that will find they have access to even fewer resources. As you know, nearly 80% of the IMS program budget is dedicated to the General Operating Support program. Dollars for operating support are critical to museums; they help museums maintain hours of operation, care for collections and bring a wide range of educational and cultural activities to the public. Yet, dollars for operating support continue to be the most difficult type for museums to raise. Unlike support for a particular project or program, support for general operations does not provide the public recognition that corporations, individuals and foundations must often seek to be true to their missions. Our grant recipients speak eloquently about how important general operating funds are and the difference they've made in their communities. Their stories are repeated by IMS grantees in cities and towns throughout the US. From Mark Sinclair, Executive Director, Catawba Science Center, Hickory NC: Let me tell you what we've been able to accomplish at the Catawba When we were 'good enough,' we applied and were fortunate enough to receive a GOS award. From that year on, our fortunes grew rapidly; we increased the number of corporate members from less that 10 to over 100, doubled the number of school children we served, increased our family membership by about 40%, got several large grants to upgrade our exhibits within the medical and physical sciences, and initiated minority outreach efforts. At each stage, one of the key selling points we used to prospective donors was that we had received an IMS grant ... IMS awards ...can be utilized to attract additional audience and support." From Lisa Domenici Gorence, Executive Director Albuquerque Children's Museum, NM: "IMS specifically supports museum which exemplify the highest professional standards in the business. The application process is very indepth and highly competitive. Our Museum just completed our first General Operating Support application last January and we found the process to be an outstanding evaluation tool. In addition, an IMS grant award gives a receiving institution vital credibility that leverages more private support." From Dr. Edward J. Maruska, Executive Director, Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, "IMS funding has helped our Zoo grow into a world-class conservation IMS has made a great effort over the years to see that these precious general operating support dollars benefit as many high quality museums as possible. The competition for these dollars is very intense and we never feel that we can come close to funding all of the highest quality applicants. With this in mind, we made the General Operating Support grant a two year award and reduced the amount of the award. With this change we were able to fund an additional 126 museums in 1995. More recently, we have let museums know that after receiving two consecutive awards (that is, funding for four years) they will not be eligible to compete for a year. The first year of the "sit out" will be FY 2000. Unfortunately, the effect of the two year grant and the "sit out" policy will be significantly diminished with reduced appropriations for IMS. This year we celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Institute of Museum Services. The field has grown significantly over this time. Twenty years ago we did not have the diversity of museums we have today, in fact many of today's museums did not exist. We did not have the diversity of audiences, in fact many of our current visitors did not feel welcome; we did not have the diversity in approach to the way we present exhibitions and we did not have the diversity of educational offerings. Twenty years ago, Congress recognized the importance of museums and the scientific, cultural, historic and artistic collections they hold. They envisioned an agency that would: encourage and assist museums in their educational role, in conjunction with assist museums in modernizing their methods and facilities so that they may |