Higher Education Capital Facilities Studies: Expanding The Comparable Framework Preliminary Report...
-
Upload
oswin-sullivan -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Higher Education Capital Facilities Studies: Expanding The Comparable Framework Preliminary Report...
Higher Education Capital Facilities Studies: Expanding The Comparable Framework
Preliminary ReportJoint Legislative Audit & Review Committee
May 18, 2005
2
Presentation Topics
1. Higher Education Capital Landscape
2. The “Comparable Framework” as Facilities Information for the State
3. Research Assignments & Key Findings Time as Dimension of Building Preservation Facility Modernization on a Comparable Basis Campus Infrastructure on a Comparable Basis
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
3
Higher Education Capital Landscape 6 universities and 34 colleges
occupy 2/3rds of the State’s buildings.
Roughly half of capital spending authorized each biennium ($800M to $1.4B in state bonds).
A mix of state and local resources help pay for changes to facilities.
Institutions collectively spend $470M a biennium to keep facilities open for business.
New ConstructionAcquire and
construct brand new building
and infrastructure
systems. Modernization
Upgrade or replace obsolete
building and infrastructure
systems.
Preservation
Maintain and repair
building and infrastructure
systems.
Different Types of Facility Investments Come Before Washington Lawmakers
The “Comparable Framework” as Facilities Information for the State
Assembled 2002 Explored 2004
“Time” Dimension
Given Buildings
Age in Place
?
5
About Modernization Research for the “Framework” Adapting spaces for business purposes,
to make use of advances in technology and program upgrades needed because of transformations in specific academic disciplines, or trends in teaching methods that alter how learning takes place.
Legislature and governor respond to hundreds of major (>$5M) and minor capital project requests each biennium to modernize facilities across Washington at 133 different higher education campus sites.
Modernization
Upgrade or replace obsolete
building and infrastructure
systems.
6
Lessons Learned: Modernization on a Comparable Basis
Survey and measurement techniques are emerging, but there is not yet one approach that lends facility comparability on a statewide basis.
Assessment not designed to contrast a community college with a university. “Benchmarks” are, by and large, national program peers (e.g., what ASU just built).
Ways modernization gets characterized for facilities (typology) may considerably improve communication between stakeholders.
Chapter 3 & Appendix 4 of the Report
Modernization
Upgrade or replace obsolete
building and infrastructure
systems.
7
About “Framework” Pilot Research
CWU BuildingsInstitution:
1. Established last year of replacement/renewal for 12 major systems and components for six buildings.
JLARC:
2. Entered dates into a model that calculates future (life cycle) repair requirements for each major system by facility.
WSU InfrastructureInstitution:1. Established quantities of
main components, dates of original construction or last renewal and assign a condition score (qualitative assessment).
JLARC:2. Applied replacement cost
and cycles for each component; aggregate up to derive system-level measures of campus conditions.
Figure 6, Page 13 of the Report 8
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
2052
2054
Building TwoBuilding One Entire Pilot
Buildings: Preservation Needs Can Be Forecast
Co
mp
on
en
t R
ep
lac
em
en
t V
alu
e
Figure 10, Page 24 of the Report
9
Infrastructure: Campus Conditions Can Be Quantified
Electrical
Chilled Water
Roadways and Parking
Sewer
Pedestrian paving
Marginal Limited Fair Adequate Superior 5 4 3 2 1
10
Lessons Learned: “Time” as a Dimension of Ongoing Building Preservation
It is feasible to add It is feasible to add timetime information to the information to the Framework on buildings. Framework on buildings.
Doing so enables forecasts to be constructed Doing so enables forecasts to be constructed that add value for the inventory condition that add value for the inventory condition reporting efforts, and reveal opportune times reporting efforts, and reveal opportune times to synchronize activity with modernization. to synchronize activity with modernization.
Investment strategies may vary but that is not Investment strategies may vary but that is not a barrier to understand and examine a barrier to understand and examine preservation needs on a statewide, preservation needs on a statewide, comparable basis. comparable basis.
Preservation
Chapter 2 & Appendix 3 of the Report
11
Lessons Learned: Infrastructure on a Comparable Basis
It is possible to add infrastructure to the Framework and provide comparable, quantified campus condition profiles on a statewide basis.
Taking the next step to estimate “preservation” backlogs would require extensive, additional infrastructure engineering-based research.
State does not guide agencies in preparation of major infrastructure project requests.
Preservation
Maintain and repair
building and infrastructure
systems.
Chapter 4 & Appendix 3 of the Report
12
Research Conclusions: Expand the Comparable Framework?
1. Can preservation profiles for buildings be dynamic by adding dates of last renewal or replacement for systems?
2. Can modernization be accomplished on a comparable basis?
3. What about comparable preservation profiles for campus infrastructure?
Feasible; Opportune time to add “time” information to the Framework is when conditions are updated.
Not feasible to pursue on a statewide basis at this time.
Possible, but success is less certain than for buildings for $.
13
While JLARC “Framework” Research Proceeded, There Were State Budget Developments…
1. OFM evaluates business alternatives for facility inventory and asset systems (FIS/CAMS).
Done; reviewed internally but no action yet taken.
2. JLARC completes a performance review of state and agency capital budget processes.
Done; OFM response and improvement plan due to the Legislature by December 2005.
14
State Budget Developments… (continued)
3. Universities (Council of Presidents) prepare their 1st integrated capital project funding request for lawmakers, guided by Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB).
Done; process will be repeated next January-August, before the 2007 Session.
4. 2005 Capital Act instructs JLARC to refresh original preservation information about buildings.
Not doneNot done; work to begin this summer for use by HECB, OFM and Legislature in early 2006.
15
So . . . The Framework is one element in a larger
discussion now underway about “systems of information,” process and practices in Capital Budgeting.
And if the Legislature agrees that the Framework is valuable and provides a way to make sense of individual campus projects, investment choices and preservation tradeoffs, it should act to help sustain it.
Pages 29-32 of the Report
16
Recommendation 1
The Legislature should act to place the
Comparable Framework within an
organization to be maintained (JLARC
suggestions), or alternatively, choose
deliberately not to sustain the Framework
beyond the refresh assignment just given to
JLARC for Fiscal Year 2006.
17
Recommendation 2
The Office of Financial Management should
contribute to the policy deliberation about
sustaining or expanding the Comparable
Framework into the future, by making
recommendations concerning information
assembled from capital agencies about facility
preservation and asset stewardship.