1 2 Capital Program Overview Previous FCS data Overview - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

2

Capital Program

• Overview – Previous FCS data
• Upcoming Facility Condition Survey
• Capital Tools Refresher
• DAHP support

Steve Lewandowski

Chief Architect October, 2018

• Overview – Previous FCS data

Previous Facility Condition Survey Overview

• Building condition trend – How do they change over time?
• System building condition summary – What is our goal?
• Maintenance expenditures comparison – How do you

compare to others?

4

Average Building Condition Trend

5

Adequate = 275 64%

System Building Condition Summary

6

What has affected the progress in reaching this goal?

• Repair funding level has increased by 10% per biennium
• Major project funding reduced over the last 3 biennia
• Upward trend towards achieving this goal has become flat

Facility Condition Immediate Replacement Needs Major Renovation Needs Improvement Adequate Superior

State Board goal: All buildings in adequate condition or better by 2020.

2013 4.9% 10.5% 21.1% 33.5% 30.0% 63.5% 2015 2.8% 12.9% 20.0% 36.9% 27.4% 64.3% 2017 2.6% 11.6% 22.3% 33.8% 29.7% 63.5% Adequate or better

Average Building Condition Trend

Budget Requests tell a story:

7

Trend: 64% flat

System Building Condition Summary

8

Facility Condition Immediate Replacement Needs Major Renovation Needs Improvement Adequate Superior

State Board goal: All buildings in adequate condition or better by 2020. Counteracting changes in condition:

• A few buildings receive significant improvement every biennium
• All other buildings slowly degrade
• System has reached equilibrium under current funding level

2013 4.9% 10.5% 21.1% 33.5% 30.0% 63.5% 2015 2.8% 12.9% 20.0% 36.9% 27.4% 64.3% 2017 2.6% 11.6% 22.3% 33.8% 29.7% 63.5% Adequate or better

System Building Condition Summary

9

What does it cost to achieve the goal:

• 1 out of 5 buildings need minor improvements

($230k average x 219 buildings x 2 systems = $100.6 Million)

• 1 out of 10 buildings need major renovations

($30M average x 98 buildings = $2.94 Billion)

• 1 out of 40 should be replaced

($35M average x 25 buildings = $875 Million) Total cost = $3.92 Billion Target duration to reach goal = 10 biennia Cost per biennium = $392 Million

System Building Condition Summary

10

Biennial budget request required to reach goal: Maintain current conditions $300 Million Additional improvements to conditions $392 Million Total budget required (for 10 biennia) $692 Million Actual request: 2019-21 Budget request $600 Million 2021-23 Estimated budget request $850 Million (if 2019-21 is successful)

11

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50

Bates Bellevue Bellingham Big Bend Cascadia Centralia Clark Clover Park Columbia Basin Edmonds Everett Grays Harbor Green River Highline Lake Washington Lower Columbia North Seattle Olympic Peninsula Pierce Fort Steilacoom Pierce Puyallup Renton Seattle Central Shoreline Skagit Valley South Puget Sound South Seattle Spokane Spokane Falls Tacoma Walla Walla Wenatchee Valley Whatcom Yakima Valley

2013 Staff 2013 Contracted 2015 Staff 2015 Contracted 2017 Staff 2017 Contracted

Maintenance Expenditures Comparison

Annual maintenance expenditures (staff, materials and outside contracts)

Upcoming Facility Condition Survey

Facility Condition Survey

• Surveys occur Feb – Nov, 2019 (Scheduled in January)
• Support documents provided with Outlook invite and email
• Facility Condition Survey Tool is available
• Results will be used to ask for roughly $48M in the 2021-23 budget for

repairs (10% increase)

• Average repair funding request = $1.4M per college

13

Process

• The survey is completed roughly every two years at each college.
• All owned buildings are evaluated and scored based on their condition.
• Building and site deficiencies are evaluated and scored.
• A report is generated for each college and published at the end of the

calendar year. These reports are used to help the State Board build part of the capital budget proposal.

• All college deficiencies are ranked by score. The highest ranking

deficiencies are included in the next capital budget proposal.

• The building condition scores will be used by colleges that request a

major capital project (worth 15% of total points).

• Funding is requested in the next biennium capital budget.
• Funding becomes available 2 years after survey (on average).

14

Preparing for the survey

• Review Pre-survey questions (your use only)
• Review State Board guide to identify deficiencies (email)
• Use the Facility Condition Survey tool to enter data

http://www.sbctc.edu/colleges-staff/programs-services/capital-budget/facility-assessment.aspx

• Evaluate and obtain supporting documentation for deficiencies that are

not observable. Examples: underground utilities, electrical systems, obsolete safety equipment with verification that it is no longer supported, extent of moisture damage, etc

15

Site visit

• Initial interview with facility director and business officer

Update facility condition and planning data Discuss currently funded and previously identified minor works projects Review and update deficiency and maintenance management data provided by college

• Survey building and site conditions

Score buildings and review deficiencies

• Exit interview

Go over survey highlights Overview of building and site score changes Overview of deficiencies that will be included in the survey report

16

Other Focus Areas

• Continued focus on spending Minor works funds in two years. Projects

should start immediately after budget bill is signed. Coordinate with DES prior to the release of funds.

• A new focus on infrastructure. Many campuses have utilities that are

more than 50 years old. System failures could be extremely disruptive to programs. Campus-wide solutions could be considered as a major project request.

17

Infrastructure Survey

• A system-wide infrastructure condition survey will be completed in

addition to the facility condition survey. This survey will be independent

• f the FCS. This new survey will be used to build a database and

identify projects that will reduce the risk of major system failures.

• This is a new type of minor work project since much of the work may be
• preventative. Projects may be ranked based on system age and

component materials rather than observable degradation. The State Board plans to hire a contract employee to complete the survey. The effort may take 8 to 10 months to complete.

• Colleges will be asked to provide resources to help identify system

composition and age. The data will be used to identify high priority infrastructure repair or replacement projects that will be included in the 2021-23 biennium request.

18

Infrastructure Survey

• The system will request $34M for these infrastructure minor works
• projects. This is in addition to the request for site, roof and facility
• repairs. The site repair category will no longer include infrastructure.

Equipment that is not located in close proximity to a building (roughly 5 feet) will be considered infrastructure during the facility and infrastructure condition surveys.

• Infrastructure project examples: Utility loops, electrical feeder lines,

transformers, cooling towers or remote mechanical equipment.

19

Capital Tools Refresher

• Facility Condition Survey Tool
• Allocation and Monitoring tables (SBCTC website)
• Minor Works Project Change Tool
• ADA standards Tool

20

Capital Tools Refresher

• Facility Condition Survey Tool
• Allocation and Monitoring tables (SBCTC website)
• Minor Works Project Change Tool
• ADA standards Tool

21

22

sbctc-fcs

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Capital Tools Refresher

• Facility Condition Survey Tool
• Allocation and Monitoring tables (SBCTC website)
• Minor Works Project Change Tool
• ADA standards Tool

34

Allocation and Monitoring

35

SEARCH “ALLOCATION AND MONITORING” SBCTC.EDU

36

Allocation and Monitoring

37

Allocation and Monitoring

38

Allocation and Monitoring

39

Allocation and Monitoring

Capital Tools Refresher

• Facility Condition Survey Tool
• Allocation and Monitoring tables (SBCTC website)
• Minor Works Project Change Tool
• ADA standards Tool

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Capital Tools Refresher

• Facility Condition Survey Tool
• Allocation and Monitoring tables (SBCTC website)
• Minor Works Project Change Tool
• ADA standards Tool

51

52

ADA Review Tool

53

ADA Review Tool

54

ADA Review Tool

55

ADA Review Tool

56

ADA Review Tool

57

ADA Review Tool

58

ADA Review Tool

59

ADA Review Tool

DAHP support

(Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation)

• What is the law?
• Support provided by State Board
• Requirement flow chart

60

What is the law?

Executive order 05-05 (protect cultural heritage and archeological resources) Capital projects will require DAHP review if:

• Project funds are appropriated
• Project includes ground disturbing activities
• Renovation project includes work in a building that is more than 45

years old

• Project is required to go through the State Environmental Policy Act

(SEPA) process

61

Support Provided by State Board

The State Board will:

• Submit master list of all minor projects at start of biennium to DAHP to

determine which are exempt from DAHP review

• Submit initial forms required for DAHP review

The College will:

• Submit all forms required through a SEPA process
• Coordinate with DAHP to fulfill any requirements beyond the initial

review

62

63

Proposed Construction Project

?

Questions?

64

Questions?

Questions?

Questions?

Capital Updates

• Capital Timeline and budget request
• Minor Works projects status update

Steve Lewandowski

Chief Architect

Cheryl Bivens

Budget Analyst

2018 2019 2019

Dec Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun Apr Mar Feb Jan May Nov

2020

Implementation of 19-21 budget Implementation of 17-19 budget 19-21 request Legislature develops final 19-21 budget OFM Governor’s 19-21 budget 21-23 instr. Develop changes to scoring system for 21-23 Facility Condition Survey Stakeholder input for 2023-25. How is the capital process working? What needs improvement? Principles

2017 2018

Implementation of 17-19 budget 19-21 prep Colleges develop 19-21 requests Scoring Principles Stakeholder input for 2021-23. How is the capital process working? What needs improvement?

Dec Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun Apr Mar Feb Jan May Nov Dec Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun Apr Mar Feb Jan May Nov

Major Requests Due We Are Here

21-23 prep Colleges develop 21-23 requests Scoring

2021-23 Workshop

66

Minor Requests Due

67

Request 2019-21

Category Total Minor Work – Preservation $23,739,000 Minor Repairs – Roof $15,252,000 Minor Repairs – Facility $38,527,000 Minor Repairs – Site $3,310,000 Minor Work – Program $37,148,000 Minor Work - Infrastructure $34,000,000 Major Projects $483,888,000

Total Request $627,357,000

*Includes $14,195,000 in postponed minor projects *

68

Request 2019-21

69

Request 2019-21

Minor Works Projects status

70

• Schedule data has been collected from colleges
• WACT requires an updated status report of all minor works

projects (see handout). The summary report is provided when requested at WACT meetings and includes:

• 1. Number of projects with missing schedules
• 2. Any project schedules that extend beyond the current

biennium

• 3. Number of projects that are NOT reported to be on

schedule

• Data can be reviewed or updated using the minor works

project change tool

71

Minor Works Project Schedules Summary

Status of projects with at least $1,000 in State appropriations as of 10/09/2018 College Number of projects Projects missing schedules Project schedules extending beyond this biennium Projects NOT reported to be

• n schedule

Bates Technical College 8 Bellevue College 5 5 5 Bellingham Technical College 8 Big Bend Community College 11 1 1 Cascadia College 4 4 4 Centralia College 4 Clark College 4 4 4 Clover Park Technical College 5 2 2 Columbia Basin College 9 Edmonds Community College 3 3 3 Everett Community College 8 1 1 Grays Harbor College 11 Green River College 14 Highline College 9 Lake Washington Institute of Technology 8 Lower Columbia College 8 North Seattle College 5 Olympic College 8 8 8 Pierce College Fort Steilacoom 6 6 6 Pierce College Puyallup 2 2 2 Renton Technical College 6 Seattle Central College 7 7 7 Shoreline Community College 8 1 1 Skagit Valley College 4 4 4 South Puget Sound Community College 9 South Seattle College 13 13 13 Spokane Community College 3 Tacoma Community College 3 3 3 Walla Walla Community College 9 Wenatchee Valley College 5 Whatcom Community College 4 1 Yakima Valley College 5 Grand Total 218 65 66

72

Missing Some Schedules Missing All Schedules Delayed Bill passed Jan, 2018 Allowed 17 months to spend instead of 24 Colleges given chance to postpone work Have spent 16% of allocations Should be at 37% based on schedules provided No black bar = nothing spent or no schedules Chart shows lots of red (college schedules) Funds not spent by June 30 will dissolve If can’t complete work, offer funds to others BAC will see this report next week WACT will see this report in December

Questions?

73