1 / 9

Refreshing Preservation Information in the Comparable Framework

Refreshing Preservation Information in the Comparable Framework. Project Report to the Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee March 29, 2006. Capital Assignment Scope & Purpose.

camilla-hess
Download Presentation

Refreshing Preservation Information in the Comparable Framework

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Refreshing Preservation Information in the Comparable Framework Project Report to the Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee March 29, 2006

  2. Capital Assignment Scope & Purpose • Building conditions are one factor to be considered in the higher educationproject ranking process (RCW 28B.76.220) for capital budgeting. • The Comparable Framework is an inventory database JLARC assembled in 2003 to examine facility preservation needs and circumstances for the Legislature. • 2005 Budget Act assigned JLARC the task of refreshing this comparable inventory information. Refreshing the Comparable Framework

  3. The Project Report: Background • Repeats an established method • Conventions for assigning condition scores and related “translation” steps for comparability • Includes field audits of buildings • Working with different data sets available from each baccalaureate institution or College system • Portrays 2006 preservation conditions • Through a series of charts, tables and profiles Refreshing the Comparable Framework

  4. The Project Report: Summary The report digest and this presentation highlight changes from 2003 to 2006 for higher education facilities* in three aspects: • Inventory Size and Value • Rated Building Conditions • Preservation $ Estimate aka “Backlog” Level • State capital-supported facilities over 1,999 gross square feet (GSF) in size. General exclusions from the Comparable Framework are fee-supported buildings, such as dormitories and dining halls, athletic field houses, bookstores, hospitals, etc. Refreshing the Comparable Framework

  5. 1. Added Space, More Expensive to Preserve • Total area up 2.4 million gross square feet (GSF) valued at $14.6 billion to replace 1,377 buildings • Inventory replacement value increased by 27% since 2003 • Caused substantially by a sharp rise in market costs for building and building systems–a national and local trend • An increase in market costs also contributed to growth in the preservation backlog “level” (projected to July 2006), whose calculation starts from deficiencies for buildings as used across 42 institutions Refreshing the Comparable Framework

  6. 2. Building Conditions are Fairly Stable 2006 Overall Condition 1,377 Buildings* 2003 Overall Condition 1,343 Buildings* Superior or Adequate 22.8 million gross ft2 (54% of total) Superior or Adequate 21.3 million gross ft2 (53% of total) Fair 15.0 million gross ft2 (37% of total) Fair 14.1 million gross ft2 (33% of total) Needs Improvement 3.8 million gross ft2 (10% of total) Needs Improvement 5.6 million gross ft2 (13% of total) * State Capital-Supported Refreshing the Comparable Framework

  7. 3. Backlog Has Increased Since 2003 A combination of more space, price increases and deferred work on buildings explains the change from $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion Refreshing the Comparable Framework

  8. Distribution of Refreshed 2006 Framework • Higher Education Coordinating Board • Office of Financial Management • House Capital Budget Committee • Senate Ways & Means Committee • JLARC recommended the Legislature assign responsibility for upkeep to another state agency (see conclusions, Report 05-10) but as yet, no decision has been made. Refreshing the Comparable Framework

  9. 2006 Project Participants • Eric Meng of Meng Analysis (JLARC Consultant) • Eric Hausman, University of Washington • Rob Corcoran, Washington State University • Shawn King, Eastern Washington University • Bill Vertrees, Central Washington University • Collin Orr and Paul Smith, The Evergreen State College • William Managan, Western Washington University • Tom Henderson, State Board for Community & Technical Colleges For more information:Karen Barrett, JLARC Analyst (360) 786-5181, barrett.karen@leg.wa.gov Refreshing the Comparable Framework

More Related