Yes, we do what we call an allowance for capital improvements. A pool of money is allocated to us by Parliament. That is calculated based on a certain percentage of the value of the building. Then we're responsible for actually maintaining those buildings, but then reality creeps in, and what happens is two things.
First of all, when we are leasing to purchase, the leases are considered operating leases, and therefore we don't get any money to maintain them. Then when we finally buy them for a dollar at the end of the lease, they're not as good as we would like them to be, so we need that corrected--and that is partly an accountant's nightmare: Is this a lease? Do you want it or don't you want it? Of course, who's going to walk away from a building when you pay a dollar and take it, so in effect you own it. In fact, the lease payments imply you're paying for the whole building over 25 years anyway, so that's an issue we've got to work with. That really ends up resulting in the fact that the pool of capital is not sufficient to do the maintenance.
The second reality that intrudes is that we are judged on so many different factors. One of them is whether we have space we're not using, so that means we don't have swing space. If you don't have swing space, it's very hard to tell the Department of Agriculture to please vacate and get out of this building so we can do something to it, so we defer maintenance based on the fact that we can't get at the place, and it stretches out, and so forth. In the end, we lapse the money--give it back to Parliament--but the buildings don't get maintained as they should. These are realities we have to deal with.