2017-19 Capital Budget Request
Development Workshop
Pierce College Puyallup March 12th, 2015
Big Bend Community College April 7th, 2015
Wayne Doty
Capital Budget Director
TODAY’S LEARNING OBJECTIVE
Everything you need to prepare a college’s 2017-19 capital request.
2
WELCOME
Today’s Speakers
Wayne Doty
Choi Halladay
Laurie Clary
Matthew Campbell
Steve Lewandowski
Bob Bourg
Nancy Deakins
Yelena Semenova
WiFi Access
SSID: PierceGuest
User: sbctc
Pass: guest
Emergency Egress
Restrooms
Questions
3
AGENDA
9:00 – 10:15 Welcome, General Information and Trends
•
Learning Environment Trends
12:30 – 2:30 Minor Projects
•
Student Service Issues
•
Types and Target Funding
•
Integration of Construction on Campus
•
Alternative Financing
•
Project Costs and Controls
•
Bundling/Leveraging
10:15 – 10:30 Break
10:30 – 12:00 Current Topics of Interest
•
Space Utilization
•
ADA/OCR Compliance
•
Design-Build Delivery
12:00 – 12:30 Lunch
•
Recent Construction Slideshow
•
•
•
•
Delivery Methods
Public Work Delegation
Scheduling
Facility Condition Survey
2:30 – 2:45 Break
2:45 – 4:00 Major Projects
•
Limited Competition & Policy Changes
•
Selection Criteria
•
Previous Scores
•
Scoring Worksheets
•
Project Identification
4
REQUIREMENT FOR A SINGLE PRIORITIZED REQUEST
All projects in the capital request are prioritized.
RCW 28B.50.090(1) The State Board shall “… prepare single budget for
the support of the State system of community and technical colleges and
adult education, and submit this budget to the Governor…”
OFM Capital Budget Instructions, Section 1.3 “Agencies must prioritize
each capital project in the ten-year capital plan by its contribution to the
goals, objectives, strategies and activities in the agency’s strategic plan.”
5
SYSTEM SUPPORT FOR THE CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST
We collectively and individually support the prioritized request submitted by the
State Board…our support... remains unwavering despite the potential for
individual colleges to benefit from a reordering of the projects.
Presidents’ Letter to Legislators
6
2013
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2014
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Implementation of 13-15 budget
Colleges develop 15-17 requests
Facility Condition Survey
Stakeholder input for 2017-19. How is the capital process working?
2014
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
15-17 prep
Scoring
What needs improvement?
2015
Jan
Feb
2017-19
Workshop
Mar
Apr
Principles
May
Jun
Implementation of 13-15 budget
15-17 request
OFM Governor’s 15-17 budget
Develop Changes to Scoring System for 17-19
2015
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Legislature develops final 15-17 budget
Facility Condition Survey
17-19 instructions
Major
Requests
Due Jan
Dec
Minor
Requests
Feb Due Mar
2016
Apr
May
Jun
Implementation of 15-17 budget
Colleges develop 17-19 requests
Stakeholder input for 2019-21.
Scoring
How is the capital process working?
17-19 prep
What needs improvement?
Principles
7
Facilities of the Future
Instruction Commission
Guiding Principles, Best Practices, and Lessons Learned
Bob Mohrbacher
Vice President for Instruction &
Student Services
Big Bend Community College
Laurie Kaye Clary
Vice President for Instruction
Grays Harbor College
RESEARCH ON LEARNING
• Learning happens everywhere, is multi-disciplinary, and encompasses
multiple ways of knowing
• Curriculum is personalized.
• Students participate as “creators" of information and learn “to be”
practitioners.
• Learning focuses on transferable skills and involves complex, real-life
problems, mock examinations, workplace simulations, and is assessed
through collaborative, team-based projects
• Faculty are guides and facilitators in the learning process and their
development focuses on ways to support multiple types of learning,
use meaningful technologies, and integrate disciplines.
• Technology and multi-media are widely used.
9
RESEARCH ON FUTURE FACILITY NEEDS
Spaces are needed that provide for:
• Interaction, collaboration, and a sense of belonging- formal and
informal learning communities.
• Real-world professional settings.
• Multi-purpose, multiple discipline use at different times during a
week, month, quarter, and academic year.
• Solitary and social reflection, meditation, movement, and quiet.
• Technologies--multi-screen projection capability, virtual
learning, podcasting, etc.
• Promote sustainable practices.
10
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR FACILITIES OF THE FUTURE
1. Capital funding models should recognize and reward multiple
use of space on campuses.
2. Learning and office spaces should promote collaboration, peerto-peer exchanges, multi-disciplinary learning communities,
and real-world experiences.
3. New, remodeled, and renovated structures should be analyzed
and evaluated in the context of the entire campus master plan.
4. All students should be able to access facilities and fully
participate in learning
11
GUIDING PRINCIPLES (CONTINUED)
5. Campus facilities and resources should be leveraged and used
to build partnership and collaboration with others.
6. Faculty and administrators should have the necessary support,
skills, abilities, and tools to maximize the intended use of
facilities.
7. Facilities should be designed with the involvement of end-users.
8. Facilities should meet rigorous sustainability standards (LEED
Certified Standards).
9. Facilities should be built for emergency preparedness and
disaster protection.
12
BEST PRACTICES
• Facility planning and implementation decisions should be based
upon the mission(s) of the college.
• Assign a point person from instruction.
• All involved should understand capital funding.
• All involved should strategically think about placement of
services, labs, classrooms, and informal learning spaces as they
relate to comprehensive student centered learning.
• Simple, clear and strategically located floor plan directories and
directional signs.
• “Try out” room layouts, furniture placement, movement patterns,
acoustic options etc.
13
LESSONS LEARNED
• It is important to involve end-users in the entire capital project
process --design through building construction.
• Colleges need to anticipate the future use of buildings and
create flexible designs to allow for unanticipated needs that
change from the beginning of the processes to completion.
14
Facilities of the Future
Part II
Student Services Commission
Core Themes, Applications, and Lessons
Bob Mohrbacher
Vice President for Instruction &
Student Services
Big Bend Community College
Matthew Campbell
Vice President for Learning &
Student Success
Pierce College Puyallup
COMMON CORE THEMES
• Collaboration – Engagement requires collaboration, whether in
the classroom, the advising office, or the social sphere. Students
and student service professional require spaces that allow them
to come together to advance learning, services, and student
development.
• Flexibility – As identified with classroom learning spaces,
innovative facilities that provide the flexibility to be used for
multiple purposes permit the greatest efficiency.
• Inclusiveness – Increasing awareness and commitment to our
diverse student populations increases our obligation to design
facilities that serve and provide accessibility to all members of
our college communities.
16
WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE
•
Collaboration
• Impromptu spaces that promote casual discourse
• Adjacency of student and faculty spaces to encourage engagement
• “One-stop” service areas that allow for cross-training and expanded
support for many areas, though not all.
• Robust support for power, networking, and presentation.
•
Flexibility
• Innovative spaces that balance sufficient space with the ebb & flow
cycles of many student services areas (e.g. areas that allow
expansion during key times, that manage long lines, etc.).
• Size- and fixture/furniture-flexible space to serve a wide-range of
student programming needs, which can also adapt for other use
when needed (e.g. tutoring/SI, group workshops,
impromptu team meetings, etc.).
17
WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE
• Inclusiveness – Examples include:
• Gender neutral/all-gender restroom facilities
• Designated lactation areas for nursing mothers
• Meditation rooms to serve multiple faiths and reflective activities
• Steadfast and committed attention to universal design
• Privacy considerations for discussions of sensitive information
• Other Areas of Focus & Need
• Student Housing – embeds all of the themes above
• Parking
18
LESSONS LEARNED…REITERATED
• It is important to involve end-users in the entire capital project
process – from initial design and ideation through building
construction.
• Colleges need to anticipate the future use of buildings and create
flexible designs to allow for unanticipated needs that change from
the beginning of the processes to completion.
• Ultimately, our colleges need space that is flexible, where the
community can engage and collaborate with one another, and that
is inclusive of the diversity of those connecting
with our campuses.
19
Integration of
Construction on Campus
Operations and Facilities Council
Dave Jungkuntz
Facilities Manager
Bellingham Technical College
Jeff Wood
Director of Facility Operations
Yakima Valley Community College
ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS
 Contractors
•
Subcontractors
 Campus Community
•
Suppliers
•
Faculty/Instruction
•
Students
 Construction Team
•
Facilities Team
•
Campus Project Manager
•
General Public
•
Architect/Design Team
•
Administration
•
DES Project Manager
21
BE PROACTIVE ABOUT SAFETY & COMMUNICATION
1.
Review Drawings and Specifications
a.
Construction Area
b.
Staging and Project Access Areas
c.
Hours of Construction
d.
Campus Operations Calendar
2.
Review Contractor Safety Plan
a.
Points of Contact
b.
Safety & Emergency Aid resources
22
BE PROACTIVE ABOUT SAFETY & COMMUNICATION
3.
Maintain Contractor & Campus Signage & Notices
a.
Designated Access points and hours
b.
Designated Contractor Parking and Vehicular staging areas
c.
Temporary and Short Term Caution Tape as needed
4.
Review at Regularly Scheduled Job Meetings
a.
Safety – standing agenda item
b.
Project Schedule & 3-week look ahead
i.
Future planned work
ii.
Large equipment deliveries
iii.
Roof work
iv.
Class/Facility Schedules
v.
Campus Events
23
BE PROACTIVE ABOUT SAFETY & COMMUNICATION
5.
Established Contractor/College liaisons for operational coordination
outside job meetings
a.
Review of existing utility and infrastructure conditions
b.
Review of planned and unplanned utility shut-downs and connections
c.
Coordination of disruptive construction activities in an operating facility or
near populated parts of campus (e.g. noise, vibration, odor, dust
generating, traffic)
d.
College email updates to campus community about status of project and
creating awareness of construction related safety issues
e.
Coordination of construction material delivery errors
f.
Coordination of project tours by College sponsored groups (instruction,
staff, donors, etc.)
24
THE TOOLS OF THE TRADE
Student access to construction areas should be avoided. Staff access
should be minimized. Access can be limited using:
1.
Movable A-frame signs
2.
Safety cones, barricades, caution tape
3.
Construction fencing with lockable access points
When access is needed we must use and follow all appropriate safety
measures:
1.
Use Personal Protection Equipment (PPE)
2.
Attend contractors safety orientation
25
POTENTIAL SCHEDULE AND COST IMPLICATIONS
1.
Providing complete and unfettered access to the work will lead to the
lowest bid for the work.
2.
Instead of requiring all work to be performed when school is out, it may
be possible to limit certain activities during specific hours.
a.
3.
a.
For example, it is possible to require contractors to performing noisy or
smelly work outside of class room hours. This needs to be coordinated
with the scheduled classes and included in the bid documents.
Limiting the performance of certain work to occur outside of the regular
business day is likely to increase the cost of the work and may increase
the duration necessary to complete the project.
Again, these requirements need to be in the bid documents. Planned
overtime work will typically add about 25% to the construction cost.
Unplanned overtime could easily double the cost.
26
Project Costs and Controls
Wayne Doty
Capital Budget Director
TYPICAL COSTS AND CONTROLS
Cost Element
Typical %
Acquisition
Design
1.9%
10.9%
Basic Service
Control
Developable land is expensive.
Build on existing land whenever possible.
4.9% Based on formula.
Extra & Other Services
Construction
Issue
6.0% Pay more for design above basic services.
Choose which consultant services you need
carefully.
72.1%
Don’t ask for more insurance or qualifications than
you need.
6.1% Strongly driven by market conditions.
Invite contractors to bid. Bid early.
Schedule sufficient time for work and coordinate
Stacking of trades. Access to skilled labor. Limited
29.3%
with weather. Avoid designing things that can't be
access to site.
built with local labor. Provide good access.
Consider material costs in design. Avoid proprietary
29.3% Different materials can provide same functionality.
or sole-source items.
General Conditions
7.3% Insurance, reports and meetings.
Overhead and Profit
Labor
Material
Construction Sales Tax
6.4%
Equipment
5.8%
Equipment Sales Tax
Art Set-aside
0.5%
0.3%
Other
1.6%
College Project Management
0.5%
100.0%
Equipment is expensive.
Reuse existing program equipment. Use
cooperative buying programs. Use standard
furniture.
Onsite representative, third party services, permits
Negotiate with Authorities Having Jurisdication.
and mitigations.
Coordinate work on campus.
Use college staff sparingly.
28
Extra & Other Consultant Services
from 2011-13 and 2013-15 SBCTC Major Project Requests
in Mar-2014$
(based on 24 projects including 1.5M GSF and a total project cost of $798M)
Type of Service
Sustainability (LEED)
Commissioning
Testing and Inspection
Civil
Landscape
Value Engineering
Constructability
Voice / Data
Geotechnical
Min
Avg Max
Frequency $/GSF $/GSF $/GSF % Extra % Other
100%
1.16 2.08 3.98
57%
43%
100%
0.21 1.85 3.59
23%
77%
100%
0.29 1.56 3.23
31%
69%
100%
0.37 1.34 4.20
99%
1%
100%
0.31 1.10 3.15
98%
2%
100%
0.65 1.09 1.97
100%
0%
100%
0.31 0.97 1.95
100%
0%
100%
0.12 0.71 3.34
94%
6%
96%
0.08 0.65 2.83
74%
26%
See handout for entire table.
29
1
Carr, Paul, G. (2005) “Investigation of Bid Price Competition Measured through Prebid Project Estimates, Actual Bid Prices,
and Number of Bidders”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 11, November 1, 2005.
2 165 SBCTC projects bid July 2011 through December 2013
30
31
COST AVOIDANCE EXAMPLE
One year into construction a City Fire and Water Department review resulted in a $130,000
construction cost increase for street and water improvements on the Mohler Communications
Technology Center.
Working with City officials and contractor the college arrived at a $60,000 solution.
32
CONSTRUCTION COST INFLATION
33
Space Utilization
Choi Halladay
Pierce College District
Vice President of Administrative Services
WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SPACE UTILIZATION?
•
The scorers from the 2015-17 selection recommended that
college’s should provide utilization data of their existing facilities
when requesting major capital requests in the future. The BAC and
WACTC agree.
•
The State Board wants to know our system’s capacity relative to our
educational attainment goals to guide their policy decisions.
•
The Legislature has expressed a growing interest in utilization data
for all of our State’s higher education facilities. Some want it tied to
funding.
35
HISTORY OF FEPG
The Facilities Evaluation and Planning Guide (FEPG) was originally completed in
1976 by representatives from each of Washington's public four year colleges and
universities. They were assisted in its development by representatives of the Office
of Financial Management, the Higher Education Coordinating Board, and the State
Board for Technical and Community Colleges, who have also participated in the
subsequent revisions. In 1990, the Interinstitutional Committee of Space Officers
began revising the FEPG and completed the first phase revisions of classrooms,
laboratories, offices, and study facilities in 1992. The completed document was
submitted in October 1994 for the Interinstitutional Committee of Business Officers'
approval.
The FEPG is based on the U.S. Department of Education Facilities Inventory and
Classification Manual, 1992 revision. The FEPG is intended for use by state-level
policy and capital outlay planners, college and university administrators, campus
planners, facilities planning and budgeting staff and project architects, to allow
consistent and objective evaluation of space use and space planning in the fouryear universities and colleges.
36
HOW IS ROOM CAPACITY CURRENTLY CALCULATED?
Room capacity has been entered by the college into the FAE for all educational
spaces.
The capacity has been based on a variety of factors; including, but not limited
to, architectural drawings, square feet per station standards, furniture layouts,
and contractual limitations.
Despite the many ways there are to describe a room’s capacity, we need a
method that everyone will use for calculating and reporting space utilization.
Since space utilization is usually used for comparisons between colleges,
getting the exact capacity of a single room may not as important as getting the
typical utilization of educational spaces at a college for this purpose.
37
WHAT HOURS ARE INCLUDED WHEN CALCULATING UTILIZATION?
Contact Hours / (Workstations * Hours Used) = Percent Utilization
Hours of Utilization per Week = Contact Hours / Workstations
FEPG and HECB use a forty-five hour week consisting of five nine-hour days.
FEPG says the 9-hour period begins with the first hour for regularly scheduled
classes. HECB specified the period was 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Other standards can
be used.
The key is that the contact hours in the numerator are consistent with the
capacity in the denominator.
38
ONE METHOD FOR DETERMINING CAPACITY IS TO USE
ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ROOM
For example, FEPG recommends:
 22 ASF for all designated general classroom space (Classified as 110 in the
FAE).
 60 ASF for all designated laboratory space including art, computer science,
natural science, social science, biological, environmental, agricultural &
health related (Classified as 210 in the FAE).
 Special use spaces related to certain trades may have their own specific
criteria such as auto work, culinary, carpentry & aeronautical.
39
BAC CAPITAL IS WORKING ON A RECOMMENDATION ON HOW OUR
SYSTEM SHOULD CALCULATE UTILIZATION
The questions are:
 What hours and days of the week to include in the analysis?
 How will each educational space’s capacity be determined?
Once these questions are answered and college are using 25Live for room
scheduling, utilization reports can be run on an ad hoc basis.
Colleges submitting major project requests need to provide utilization data for
all instructional areas on their campuses. For colleges not using 25Live, the
State Board will provide a spreadsheet once these questions are answered.
40
ADA/OCR Compliance
Steve Lewandowski
SBCTC Chief Architect
WHY DO WE DO OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS (OCR) COMPLIANCE REVIEWS?
Colleges that receive federal funds must comply with section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Act was designed to eliminate discrimination on
the basis of handicap in any program or activity provided.
The most recent update to the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for
Accessible Design was completed in 2010. This is used for all new construction.
The federal requirements for colleges is more strict than the ADA standards
identified in the International Building Code because it requires that , each part
of a program or activity provided must be “readily accessible” to handicapped
persons. This requirement must be met, regardless of building age.
42
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION 1:
This Act requires colleges to provide equal access for handicapped students. This
federal requirement does not apply to areas where students are not allowed.
The “faculty only” or “staff only” areas must comply with ADA requirements that
were enforced at the time of the initial construction as identified in the
International Building Code. Compliance issues identified in these “student
restricted” areas will not be included in the voluntary correction plan, but may be
noted during the review in an informal manner.
43
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION 2:
The Act states that all existing facilities are not required to be accessible,
however, each part of a program or activity provided must be “readily
accessible” to handicapped persons.
Example: Two story building
No elevator
Violation: Required program classes
are located on the upper floor.
Compliant: One classroom for each program course and a reasonable selection
of elective courses are located in an alternate location, on an accessible route.
44
WHO GETS REVIEWED?
• The OCR mandates that the State Board review two sub-recipients annually.
• The State Board chooses which campuses are to be reviewed each year using
federal selection criteria including complaints, enrollment data, degree or
certificate completion data and date of last review.
• Compliance reviews in 2015-17
Pierce College District
Renton Technical College
Bellevue College
Bates Technical College
45
OCR FACILITY REVIEW PROCESS
1.
Site visit (roughly 2 days for the ADA portion)
2.
Compliance report generated (includes accessibility section)
3.
Voluntary Correction Plan developed and approved
4.
Corrections completed over 1 year
5.
Follow up visits to monitor progress
46
TWO APPROACHES TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES:
Reactive
• Wait and see how the college does in the OCR review.
• Need to correct deficiencies within a year.
• Fund corrections with current minor work, operating or local funds.
Proactive
• Identify accessibility issues prior to OCR review using a consultant, the
State Board accessibility compliance tool (coming soon) or the ADA and
federal standards.
• Use the facility condition survey process to include accessibility
corrections in minor repairs.
• And/or include accessibility corrections in minor program projects.
• Complete repairs prior to the OCR review.
47
DES DESIGN-BUILD DELIVERY
(IN SEPARATE FILE)
48
RECENT CONSTRUCTION SLIDESHOW
(IN SEPARATE FILE)
49
Minor Projects
Types and Target Funding
Wayne Doty
Capital Budget Director
WHAT CAN EVERYONE GET?
Minor Works – Preservation (RMI)
Roof Repairs
Facility Repairs
Site Repairs
Minor Program Improvements
System-wide Emergency Funds, requires a match from RMI
System-wide Hazardous Material Abatement Funds
Alternative Financing
51
MINOR WORK – PRESERVATION (RMI)
Funds allocated to each college for an emergency reserve. These funds may be
used for unforeseen Repairs and Minor Improvements.
The amount allocated to each college is a function of the total number of FTE
and the amount of building square feet and age of buildings.
RMI = total amount to be distributed to all colleges for emergency reserves
FTEx/FTEtotal = x college’s share of the most recent fall quarter total enrollments
GSFx/GSFtotal = x college’s share of the preceding fall system GSF
GSF25x/GSF25total = x college’s share of GSF built more than 25 years ago
RMIx = RMI * (35% * FTEx/FTEtotal + 35% GSFx/GSFtotal + 30% GSF25x/GSFtotal)
Nothing needs to be submitted by the college for RMI funding.
52
2017-19 Target = 1.1 x 2015-17 Request
2015-17 MINOR WORK – PRESERVATION (RMI) REQUEST
53
MINOR WORK – REPAIRS
Funds allocated to each college for deficiencies identified in the Facility
Condition Survey.
The amount allocated to each college is a function of the severity of the
deficiencies and the total amount of funding to be requested for repairs system
wide. Conceptually, we list all the repairs by severity and go down the list until
we run out of money.
In 2015-17 there were $57M of deficiencies identified in the Facility Condition
Survey. We requested funding for $36M of roof, site and facility repairs. This left
$21M in deficiency unfunded – some of which should not have been deferred.
In the past several biennium we have grouped repairs into categories; roof,
facility and site. These categories can change based on the types of deficiencies
we have.
54
REPAIR REQUEST GENERATOR
Colleges need to confirm the repairs they want to do and the budgets for them. We
do this with the Repair Request Generator. This spreadsheet will be loaded with all
of the deficiencies and their costs from the 2015 FCS. It includes contingency, tax
and A/E fee to the FCS construction costs. Colleges can override the FCS costs or
add other repairs within their budget target.
55
MINOR WORK – PROGRAM
A minor project will usually cost less than $2 million and can be a
renovation, alteration or site improvement. The SBCTC established a
target level of funding for each college. Within that level, a college may
develop one or more projects. These projects should be chosen carefully
to reflect critical goals of the college and serve to improve the educational
environment, better access, deal with childcare, or student support
services. The legislature expects these projects to be complete in the
biennium they are funded.
Projects should not include development or improvement of support space.
Do not include lease payments, Local Improvement District costs, or other
costs that are traditionally paid from the operating budget. Do not propose
projects that increase space, procure property, or have any operating
budget impact.
56
MINOR WORK – PROGRAM
Funds allocated to each college for program improvements.
The amount allocated to each college is a function of the number of student FTE and
the amount of building square feet and age of buildings.
MWP = total amount to be distributed to all colleges for minor program
improvements
FTEx/FTEtotal = x college’s share of the most recent fall quarter total enrollments
GSFx/GSFtotal = x college’s share of the preceding fall system GSF
GSF25x/GSF25total = x college’s share of GSF built more than 25 years ago
MWPx = MWP * (30% * FTEx/FTEtotal + 35% GSFx/GSFtotal + 35% GSF25x/GSFtotal)
57
2015-17 MINOR WORK – PROGRAM REQUEST
2017-19 Target = 1.1 x 2015-17 Request
Funds allocated to each college for program improvements.
The amount allocated to each college is a function of the number of FTE and the
amount of building square feet and age of buildings.
MWP = total amount to be distributed to all colleges for minor program
improvements
FTEx/FTEtotal = x college’s share of the most recent fall quarter enrollments
GSFx/GSFtotal = x college’s share of the preceding fall system GSF
GSF25x/GSF25total = x college’s share of GSF built more than 25 years ago
MWPx = MWP * (30% * FTEx/FTEtotal + 35% GSFx/GSFtotal + 35% GSF25x/GSFtotal)
58
MINOR PROGRAM REQUEST
Colleges need to describe the program
improvements they want to use their
allocation for.
We collected this information in a
Word document.
59
SYSTEM-WIDE EMERGENCY FUNDS
The State Board manages a pool for college emergencies. For this pool the definition
of an “emergency“ is:
I.
Catastrophic loss or failure* of a building or system.
II.
When a capital repair cannot be deferred into the next biennial budget cycle.
III. When work cannot be accomplished through RMI and exceeds colleges ability
to respond with available minor work preservation funding.
IV. When delays in repair would cause costly collateral damage.
V.
When large portions of a college’s programs would be placed at risk.
VI. When life safety and property risks are too high to leave un-addressed.
* Catastrophic loss or failure often presents an immediate threat to life or property
60
RESTRICTED USE OF EMERGENCY FUNDS
System-wide emergency funds cannot be used to:
I.
Augment a non-emergency local-capital project.
II. Augment another state-funded project.
III. Constructing a repair or replacement that is deferrable to the next
legislative-funding opportunity.
61
ALLOCATION OF EMERGENCY FUNDS
The allocation of system-wide emergency funds is based on a formula that
includes a college deductible. The college is responsible for the deductible
even if all their RMI has been spent.
62
SYSTEM-WIDE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL FUNDS
The State Board also manages a pool for hazardous materials encountered
at the colleges. The criteria is the same as for the emergency pool except
there is no college deductible.
63
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING
With legislative permission a college can use alternative financing for capital, like:
• A lease to own contract.
• A lease over 20 years (over 10 years requires OFM approval).
• Any debt for a capital purpose, except ESCOs.
Alternatively financed project are approved in the Capital budget so we include
them in our system request.
The COPs must use non-appropriate funds for debt service. There is often local
cash in these projects too.
64
Minor Projects
Bundling / Leveraging
Choi Halladay
Pierce College District
Vice President of Administrative Services
HOW CAN ONE MEET THEIR NEEDS WITHOUT A MAJOR PROJECT?
 Look for synergy between RMI, Repair and Program Improvements
 Leverage cash with an ESCO or an equipment COP
Example:
Use an ESCO for HVAC & lighting upgrades while buying computers using an
equipment COP in the space remodeled with Minor Program funds.
$ 650,000
$ 400,000
$ 25,000
$1,075,000
Minor Program
ESCO COP paid from energy savings
Equipment COP ($3k/year from operating funds)
Project for $30k operating expense over ten years
66
EQUIPMENT COP
The Treasurer’s office manages the Lease Purchase Program for state agencies.
This program sells Certificates of Participation for equipment and real property.
Real property COPs require legislative approval but equipment does not.
They just updated the guidelines available here http://www.tre.wa.gov/government/leasePurchaseProgram.shtml
67
ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING
The Department of Enterprise Services manages the Energy Savings Performance
Contracting program. Work done in this program usually pays for itself in less than
ten years. The portions of a project that have a return on investment can be financed.
More information is available here http://des.wa.gov/services/facilities/Energy/ESPC/Pages/default.aspx
68
DES MINOR PROJECT
DELIVERY METHODS
69
DES MINOR PROJECT
PUBLIC WORK DELEGATION
70
Minor Projects
Scheduling
Wayne Doty
Capital Budget Director
MINOR PROJECTS SCHEDULING
72
BASED ON AVERAGE DURATIONS, A BID MINOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT SCHEDULE MIGHT LOOK LIKE THIS:
73
Minor Projects
Facility Condition Survey
Steve Lewandowski
SBCTC Chief Architect
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY PROCESS
1.
The facility condition survey is completed every two years (odd number years).
2.
All college owned buildings are evaluated and scored based on their condition.
Building and site deficiencies are also evaluated.
3.
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. The reports can also be used as a planning tool for the
colleges.
4.
All college deficiencies are ranked. The minor works preservation budget is
sized by balancing projected resources and system needs. The highest scoring
deficiencies are included in the budget proposal if they fall within the total
targeted funding amount.
5.
Building scores are also used as part of the justification for major renovation and
replacement projects.
75
HOW TO GET THE MOST FROM YOUR SURVEY
 Review pre-survey questions
 Review State Board guides to identify deficiencies
 Use the Facility Condition Survey tool to collect data
 Plan to spend all of the funding in the next biennium
76
FCS SITE VISIT PROCESS
1. Initial interview with facility maintenance staff 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
2. Survey building and site conditions
Score buildings and review deficiencies
3. Exit interview
Go over survey highlights
Overview of building and site score changes
Overview of deficiencies that will be included in the survey report
77
WE LOOK AT TWENTY BUILDING SYSTEMS
1. Structure
2. Exterior Closure
3. Roofing
4. Floor Finishes
5. Walls-Finishes
6. Ceiling Finishes
7. Doors-Hardware
8. Elevators/Conveying
9. Plumbing
10.HVAC
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Elect. Service and
Lighting/Power
Life Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Modification
Quality of Maintenance
Remaining Life
Appearance
Walls/Ceilings
Glazing
78
EACH COLLEGE GETS A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THEIR FACILITIES
http://sbctc.edu/college/_f-facility-condition-survey.aspx
79
CURRENT ISSUES
• Continued focus on spending minor works funds in two years. Projects
should start immediately after budget bill is signed. Add costs for
overtime if needed.
• Consider infrastructure. Many campuses have utilities that are more
than 50 years old. System failures could be extremely disruptive to
programs. Deficiencies must be investigated prior to survey to
determine accurate scope. Campus-wide solution could be considered
as a major project request.
80
Major Projects
Limited Competition & Policy Changes
Choi Halladay
Pierce College District
Vice President of Administrative Services
MAJOR PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS
• The State Board for Community and Technical Colleges sets policy
objectives
• The colleges and State Board staff work together to develop relevant
metrics
• Colleges propose projects based on local need
• Proposals are scored and ranked relative to how well they meet the
objectives
• Top ranking proposals are added to the capital pipeline
• The State Board requests funding for the appropriate phase of each
project in the pipeline
82
2015-17 REQUEST FOR NEW APPROPRIATIONS
Priority
Type
1
O&M Fund Swap
2
Minor Works - Preservation
3
Minor Works - Preservation
4
Minor Works - Preservation
5
Minor Works - Preservation
6
Minor Works - Program
7
Major Project - Construction
8
Major Project - Construction
9
Major Project - Construction
10 Major Project - Construction
11 Major Project - Construction
12 Major Project - Design
13 Major Project - Construction
14 Major Project - Design
15 Major Project - Design
16 Major Project - Design
17 Major Project - Construction
18 Major Project - Design
19 Major Project - Design
20 Major Project - Design
21 Major Project - Construction
22 Major Project - Design
23 Major Project - Design
24 Major Project - Design
College
Project
New
Statewide
Preventive Maintenance and Building System Repairs
$22,800,000
Statewide
Emergency Repairs and Improvements
$19,360,000
Statewide
Roof Repairs
$12,534,000
Statewide
Facility Repairs
$20,733,000
Statewide
Site Repairs
$2,829,000
Statewide
Minor Program Improvements
$24,200,000
Olympic
College Instruction Center
$48,516,000
Centralia
Student Services
$33,627,000
Columbia Basin Social Science Center
$15,596,000
Peninsula
Allied Health and Early Childhood Dev Center
$26,868,000
South Seattle
Cascade Court
$31,512,000
Big Bend
Professional-Technical Education Center
$2,040,000
Renton
Automotive Complex Renovation
$16,915,000
Spokane
Main Building South Wing Renovation
$2,823,000
Highline
Health and Life Sciences
$2,932,000
Clover Park
Center for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies $3,144,000
Edmonds
Science Engineering Technology Bldg
$35,126,000
Wenatchee
Wells Hall Replacement
$2,416,000
Olympic
Shop Building Renovation
$823,000
Pierce Fort Steilacoom
Cascade Building Renovation - Phase 3
$2,940,000
Whatcom
Learning Commons
$31,332,000
South Seattle
Automotive Technology
$1,874,000
Bates
Medical Mile Health Science Center
$2,898,000
Shoreline
Allied Health, Science & Manufacturing
$3,060,000
Total:
Biennium
$22,800,000
$42,160,000
$54,694,000
$75,427,000
$78,256,000
$102,456,000
$150,972,000
$184,599,000
$200,195,000
$227,063,000
$258,575,000
$260,615,000
$277,530,000
$280,353,000
$283,285,000
$286,429,000
$321,555,000
$323,971,000
$324,794,000
$327,734,000
$359,066,000
$360,940,000
$363,838,000
$366,898,000
$366,898,000
83
PROJECT PIPELINE
2013-15 As Funded
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Type
O&M Fund Swap
Minor Works - Preservation
Repairs
Minor Works - Program
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Design 13-15
Major Project - Design 13-15
Major Project - Design 13-15
Major Project - Design 13-15
Major Project - Design 13-15
Major Project - Design 13-15
Major Project - Design 13-15
Major Project 1
Major Project 2
Major Project 3
Major Project 4
Major Project 5
Major Project 6
Major Project 7
Major Project 8
Major Project 9
Major Project 10
Remaining 2nd Design
Remaining 2nd Design
Remaining 2nd Design
Remaining 2nd Design
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Total:
College
Project
New
Statewide
O&M Fund Swap
$22,800,000
Statewide
Emergency Repairs and Improvements
$17,600,000
Statewide
Minor Repairs
$32,493,000
Statewide
Minor Program Improvements
$18,792,000
Bellevue
Health Science Building
$28,672,000
Grays Harbor
Science and Math Building
$41,576,000
Seattle Central Seattle Maritime Academy
$15,491,000
Yakima Valley
Palmer Martin Building
$19,243,000
Green River
Trades and Industry Building
$26,774,000
Bates
Mohler Communications Technology Center
$23,808,000
Clark
Health and Advanced Technologies Building
$33,784,000
Olympic
College Instruction Center
$0
Centralia
Student Services
$2,517,000
Columbia Basin Social Science Center
$965,000
Peninsula
Allied Health and Early Childhood Dev Center
$1,810,000
South Seattle
Cascade Court
$2,087,000
Renton
Automotive Complex Renovation
$1,583,000
Edmonds
Science Engineering Technology Bldg
$7,820,000
Whatcom
Learning Commons
$1,822,000
Big Bend
Professional-Technical Education Center
$0
Spokane
Main Building South Wing Renovation
$0
Highline
Health and Life Sciences
$0
Clover Park
Center for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies
$0
Wenatchee
Wells Hall Replacement
$0
Olympic
Shop Building Renovation
$0
Pierce Fort Steilacoom
Cascade Building Renovation - Phase 3
$0
South Seattle
Automotive Technology
$0
Bates
Medical Mile Health Science Center
$0
Shoreline
Allied Health, Science & Manufacturing
$0
Spokane Falls
Photography and Fine Arts
$0
Clark
North Clark County
$0
Everett
Learning Resource Center
$0
Grays Harbor
Student Services and Instructional Building
$0
TBD
TBD in 2015-17
$0
TBD
TBD in 2015-17
$0
TBD
TBD in 2015-17
$0
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
$0
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
$0
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
$0
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
$0
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
$0
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
$0
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
$0
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
$0
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
$0
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
$0
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
$0
2015-17
$299,637,000
Biennium
$22,800,000
$40,400,000
$72,893,000
$91,685,000
$120,357,000
$161,933,000
$177,424,000
$196,667,000
$223,441,000
$247,249,000
$281,033,000
$281,033,000
$283,550,000
$284,515,000
$286,325,000
$288,412,000
$289,995,000
$297,815,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
nd
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
$299,637,000
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$19,360,000
$36,096,000
$24,200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$51,402,000
$33,198,000
$15,515,000
$26,756,000
$31,390,000
$16,509,000
$34,557,000
$31,206,000
$1,926,000
$2,496,000
$2,562,000
$2,799,000
$2,490,000
$628,000
$2,898,000
$1,081,000
$4,981,010
$2,959,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2017-19
$367,809,010
Biennium
$22,800,000
$42,160,000
$78,256,000
$102,456,000
$102,456,000
$102,456,000
$102,456,000
$102,456,000
$102,456,000
$102,456,000
$102,456,000
$153,858,000
$187,056,000
$202,571,000
$229,327,000
$260,717,000
$277,226,000
$311,783,000
$342,989,000
$344,915,000
$347,411,000
$349,973,000
$352,772,000
$355,262,000
$355,890,000
$358,788,000
$359,869,000
$364,850,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
$367,809,010
4 remaining 2 Designs plus 3
new projects in 2017-19
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$21,296,000
$39,325,000
$26,620,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,398,000
$24,876,000
$23,682,000
$33,383,000
$28,350,000
$6,720,000
$28,402,000
$20,206,000
$35,019,990
$33,782,000
$1,607,000
$4,375,000
$3,701,000
$3,870,000
$2,730,000
$2,730,000
$2,730,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5 new projects in 2019-21
$396,602,990
Biennium
$22,800,000
$44,096,000
$83,421,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$140,439,000
$165,315,000
$188,997,000
$222,380,000
$250,730,000
$257,450,000
$285,852,000
$306,058,000
$341,077,990
$374,859,990
$376,466,990
$380,841,990
$384,542,990
$388,412,990
$391,142,990
$393,872,990
$396,602,990
$396,602,990
$396,602,990
$396,602,990
$396,602,990
$396,602,990
$396,602,990
$396,602,990
$396,602,990
$396,602,990
$396,602,990
$396,602,990
2019-21
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$23,426,000
$43,258,000
$29,282,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,146,000
$46,578,000
$43,290,000
$44,919,000
$29,130,000
$29,130,000
$29,130,000
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
6 new projects in 2021-23
$389,724,000
Biennium
$22,800,000
$46,226,000
$89,484,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$148,912,000
$195,490,000
$238,780,000
$283,699,000
$312,829,000
$341,959,000
$371,089,000
$374,816,000
$378,543,000
$382,270,000
$385,997,000
$389,724,000
$389,724,000
$389,724,000
$389,724,000
$389,724,000
$389,724,000
$389,724,000
2021-23
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$25,769,000
$47,584,000
$32,210,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$45,357,000
$45,357,000
$45,357,000
$45,357,000
$45,357,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$379,748,000
Biennium
$22,800,000
$48,569,000
$96,153,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$173,720,000
$219,077,000
$264,434,000
$309,791,000
$355,148,000
$359,248,000
$363,348,000
$367,448,000
$371,548,000
$375,648,000
$379,748,000
2023-25
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$28,346,000
$52,342,000
$35,431,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$49,893,000
$49,893,000
$49,893,000
$49,893,000
$49,893,000
$49,893,000
$438,277,000
Biennium
$22,800,000
$51,146,000
$103,488,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$188,812,000
$238,705,000
$288,598,000
$338,491,000
$388,384,000
$438,277,000
84
STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR CAPITAL
Total Request and Appropriations
(Not including proceeds from State backed COPs)
Initial Request
Final Funding
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$-
Biennium
85
LIMITED RESOURCES LEADS TO STIFF COMPETITION
FOR STATE APPROPRIATIONS.
Our system is required to submit a single prioritized capital budget request
for new appropriations.
We first compete among ourselves and then among all the other demands
for State appropriations.
Our system usually gest about 15% of the entire State’s capacity for new
bonds plus the Building Fee portion of tuition appropriated for our projects
each biennium.
The Building Fee amount generally goes towards our Minor Project and
the Bonds are used for Major Projects.
86
SURVEY RESULTS – MAJOR PROJECT PROPOSAL COSTS
Estimated cost for consultant and staff to prepare major project proposal and
supporting documents:
Pro je ct R e q ue st R e p o rt
Ma ste r Pla n U p d a te
Stra te g ic Pla n U p d a te
Site Fe a sib ility
$
$
$
$
Min
5,000
40,000
15,000
Ave ra g e
$ 48,115
$ 70,083
$ 23,429
$ 15,000
$
$
$
$
Ma x
75,000
150,000
65,000
15,000
Co unt
15
12
7
1
$
$
$
$
T o ta l
721,722
841,000
164,000
15,000
87
WACTC LED EFFORT TO IMPROVE CRITERIA
Tasked BAC Capital to work with representatives from OFC, SS and IC.
Look at these issues and prepare a recommendation:
 Provide clarifications for several existing criteria.
 Look at changing some of the criteria.
• Should we differentiate expected costs by location?
• Can some of the criteria be eliminated to reduce the cost of preparing a proposal?
 Look at adding new criteria.
• Is there are better way to show how well we are utilizing our existing space?
• How can we best include Infrastructure improvements in the process?
88
POTENTIAL NEED FOR
MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE WORK
IN OUR SYSTEM
89
AVERAGE USEFUL LIFE FOR
DEPRECIATION OF SELECTED INFRASTRUCTURES
Category 1
Component 2
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Electrical Service/Distribution - underground
Electical Utility Pole
Electrical Transformer - pad mounted
Electrical Transformer - in vault
Electrical Generator - free standing
Potable Water - piping
Potable Water - meters
Sewer lines - concrete
Sewer lines - brick
Sewer lines - metal
Storm drains - plasic
Storm drains - cast iron
Storm drains - metal corrugated
Storm drains - concrete
Storm drains - ditch/trench
Telecommunciation - fiber optic conductors
Utilities 3
Utilities
4
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Average Useful Life
20
20
5
5
5
25
25
50
90
40
25
30
30
40
100
5
Telecommunication networks between buildings
5 to 10
Inter building communication infrastructure.
20 to 30
Sidewalks - asphalt - ground level
Sidewalks - concrete - ground level
Sidewalks - elevated
Sidewalks - covered
Sidewalks - covered and elevated
Walking paths - gravel
Parking - asphalt
Parking - asphalt
Roads - asphalt
Curb and gutter - concrete
25
30
30
30
30
15
15
15
20
20
Useful life information from:
1. Section 30.50.10 of the State
Administrative & Accounting Manual
Issued by Office of Financial
Management.
2. Specific examples from GASB 34
guidance. Governmental Accounting
Focus Article on Estimating useful lives
for capital assets, May 2002.
3. California State University Capital Asset
Guide, April 2012.
4. University of New Mexico Design
Guidelines for Information Technology
Infrastructure Facilities.
90
ASSUME INFRASTRUCTURE WAS BUILT WITH BUILDINGS
6,000,000
Almost another 5 million square feet will be
more then 50 years old in the next 10 years.
System owned building area, GSF
5,000,000
About 4 million square feet will be more
then 50 years old in the next 2 years.
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
Building age at the end of the next biennium, Years
100-110 110-120
91
What qualifies as Infrastructure?
Electrical, potable water, sewer, natural gas, storm water, fire protection,
emergency access roads, and communication work more than five feet
outside of a building’s foundation, unless it is connecting to a building with
no other work in the project in which case the infrastructure may terminate
inside the building.
What does not qualify?
Landscaping that is not disturbed by qualifying infrastructure work, roads
(except for emergency access), driveways, parking lots, and walkways.
92
INFRASTRUCTURE CRITERIA
To earn all of the Infrastructure points, the Infrastructure portion of a major
project must demonstrate all of the following:
Objective
Program Need
Reasonableness of Cost
Risk Mitigation
Suitable for Financing
Criteria
for new building
or 100% of existing buildings
<5% of project
or 20 year ROI
for new building
or >=200% average life
average life > 30 years
Partial points are available in each criteria.
93
How we can integrate Infrastructure into Renovation, Replacement or
New Area projects with, or without, Matching funds?
By its cost.
Previously we determined which portion of a project’s points came from the Matching criteria
by the portion of the project cost that was matched. For example, if the project cost
$30,000,000 and there were $1,500,000 in matching funds, then 10% of the project’s
available points came from the Matching criteria. [$3,000,000 Matching / $30,000,000 Total =
10%]
Now we can determine the Infrastructure portion based on its cost as a percent of the project
cost, too. For example, if the project above includes $6,000,000 of Infrastructure, then 20% of
the project’s available points will come from the Infrastructure criteria. [$6,000,000
Infrastructure / $30,000,000 Total = 20%]
The balance of the project’s available points will come from the portion of the building area
that is Renovated, Replaced, or New Area.
94
SCENARIO ONE:
Renovation w/ Match and Infrastructure
Areas
Renovation
New
Demo
Net Area Change
Renovation
50,000
-
w/ Match
w/ Infrastructure
50,000
-
50,000
-
Costs
Construction w/o Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Total Construction Contracts
$ 24,000,000
$
$ 24,000,000
$ 24,000,000
$
$ 24,000,000
$ 24,000,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 30,000,000
Funding
Match
Total
$
$ 24,000,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 24,000,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 30,000,000
Project Weighting
Matching
Infrastructure
Renovation
Replacement
New
Total
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
13%
0%
88%
0%
0%
100%
10%
20%
70%
0%
0%
100%
95
SCENARIO TWO:
Renovation, Replacement, and New Area w/ Match and Infrastructure
Areas
Renovation
New
Demo
Net Area Change
Ren + New
50,000
25,000
25,000
w/ Demo
w/ Match
w/ Infrastructure
50,000
25,000
5,000
20,000
50,000
25,000
5,000
20,000
50,000
25,000
5,000
20,000
Costs
Construction w/o Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Total Construction Contracts
$ 24,000,000
$
$ 24,000,000
$ 24,000,000
$
$ 24,000,000
$ 24,000,000
$
$ 24,000,000
$ 24,000,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 30,000,000
Funding
Match
Total
$
$ 24,000,000
$
$ 24,000,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 24,000,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 30,000,000
Project Weighting
Matching
Infrastructure
Renovation
Replacement
New
Total
0%
0%
67%
0%
33%
100%
0%
0%
67%
7%
27%
100%
13%
0%
58%
6%
23%
100%
10%
20%
47%
5%
19%
100%
96
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PROJECT SIZE
Previous Minimum and Maximum Criteria: Project is not less than
25,000 gsf or does not exceed 70,000 gsf without WACTC Capital Budget
Committee approval.
By allowing a project to include any amount of Infrastructure, it no longer
makes sense to use a minimum criteria based on building square footage.
New Minimum Criteria: A major project must costs more than $5,000,000,
not exceed 70,000 gsf, and take multiple biennia to complete. Exceptions
to these criteria may be granted by the WACTC Capital Budget Committee.
97
PREFERENCE FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORY ELEMENTS
Previous Category Weighting: Reduced preference for New Area by 5%.
Considerations:
• Legislative requirement for the 4-year’s process to prioritize preserving
assets over degree production has expired.
• We are serving 10% fewer FTE now than in 2010 with 4% more space.
• The New Area criteria naturally awards less points when there is little or
no projected growth in FTE.
New Category Weighting: No preferences in 2017-19.
98
4$
7
0
2
3
8
6
0
6
0
9
8
0
0
2
9
9
7
1
9
7
4
2
0
Columbia Basin
2015-17 *
15,044,190
Edmonds
2015-17 *
33,883,189
Everett
2011-13
32,351,228
Grays Harbor
2013-15
44,662,000
Green River
2013-15
29,129,000
Highline
2015-17 *
25,834,412
Lake Washington
2009-11
25,973,919
Sorted
oldest
Lower Columbia
2011-13
41,902,769
Last
Major
Project
- sorted
oldest
to24,074,877
newest
North
Seattle
Last
Major
Project
-2011-13
sorted
alphabetically
Olympic
2015-17
* Amount
47,593,311
College
Last
Major
2014$
College
Last
Major
Amount
2014$
Peninsula
2015-17 *
25,917,369
Walla
2005-07
10,442,925
BatesWalla
38,778,627
Pierce
Fort Steilacoom 2007-09
2015-17
30,411,527
Bellevue
2013-15 *
30,966,000
Cascadia
33,362,218
Pierce
Puyallup
2007-09
26,089,814
Bellingham
2009-11
29,736,852
Pierce
Puyallup
2007-09
26,089,814
Renton
2015-17 *
16,316,522
Big Bend
35,237,513
Bellingham
2009-11
29,736,852
Seattle
Central
2013-15
16,890,000
Cascadia
2007-09
33,362,218
Lake
Washington
2009-11
25,973,919
2
Shoreline
2015-17 *
35,739,115
Centralia
32,437,226
Everett
2011-13
32,351,228
Skagit
2011-13
31,543,402
Clark Columbia
2013-15
36,910,000
Lower
2011-13
41,902,769
South
Puget
2011-13
31,153,417
Clover
Park Sound
2015-17 *
35,344,586
North
Seattle
2011-13
24,074,877
South
Seattle
2015-17 *
32,204,752
Columbia
Basin
15,044,190
Skagit
2011-13
31,543,402
Spokane
2015-17 *
26,589,708
Edmonds
33,883,189
South
Puget Sound
2011-13
31,153,417
Spokane
Falls2
2011-13
18,988,563
Everett Falls
32,351,228
Spokane
2011-13
18,988,563
Tacoma
2011-13
40,346,956
Grays Harbor
2013-15
44,662,000
Tacoma
2011-13
40,346,956
Walla
Walla
2005-07
10,442,925
Green River
2013-15
29,129,000
Bellevue
2013-15
30,966,000
Wenatchee
2015-17
*
27,651,753
Highline
25,834,412
Clark
2013-15
36,910,000
Whatcom
2015-17
*
30,223,426
Lake Harbor
Washington
2009-11
25,973,919
Grays
2013-15
44,662,000
Yakima
2013-15
20,834,000
Lower
Columbia
2011-13
41,902,769
Green River
2013-15
29,129,000
North Central
Seattle
2011-13
24,074,877
Seattle
2013-15
16,890,000
Olympic
2015-17 *
47,593,311
Yakima
2013-15
20,834,000
Peninsula
2015-17**
25,917,369
2 2nd Designs already in pipeline
Bates
2015-17
38,778,627
for funding in
2017-19.
Pierce
Fort
Steilacoom
2015-17
*
30,411,527
Big Bend
2015-17 *
35,237,513
Pierce
Puyallup
2007-09
26,089,814
Centralia
2015-17 *
32,437,226
Renton
2015-17 *
16,316,522
Clover
Park
2015-17
*
35,344,586
Seattle Central
2013-15
16,890,000
Columbia Basin
2015-17 *
15,044,190
Shoreline
2015-17 *
35,739,115
Skagit
2011-13
31,543,402
South Puget Sound
2011-13
31,153,417
Spokane Falls
2011-13
18,988,563
Tacoma
2011-13
40,346,956
Bellevue
2013-15
30,966,000
Clark
2013-15
36,910,000
Grays Harbor
2013-15
44,662,000
toGreen
newest
River
2013-15
29,129,000
Seattle
CentralProject - sorted
2013-15oldest to
16,890,000
Last Major
newest
Yakima
2013-15
20,834,000
College
Last
Major Amount
2014$
Bates
2015-17
38,778,627
Walla Walla
2005-07 *
10,442,925
Big
Bend
2015-17
35,237,513
Cascadia
2007-09 *
33,362,218
Centralia
2015-17
32,437,226
Pierce Puyallup
2007-09 *
26,089,814
Clover
Park
2015-17
35,344,586
Bellingham
2009-11 *
29,736,852
Columbia
Basin
2015-17
15,044,190
Lake Washington
2009-11 *
25,973,919
Edmonds
2015-17
33,883,189
Everett
2011-13 *
32,351,228
Highline
2015-17
25,834,412
Lower Columbia
2011-13 *
41,902,769
Olympic
2015-17
47,593,311
North Seattle
2011-13 *
24,074,877
Peninsula
2015-17
25,917,369
Skagit
2011-13 *
31,543,402
Pierce
Fort Steilacoom
2015-17
30,411,527
South Puget
Sound
2011-13 *
31,153,417
Renton
2015-17
16,316,522
Spokane Falls
2011-13 *
18,988,563
Shoreline
2015-17
35,739,115
Tacoma
2011-13 *
40,346,956
South
Seattle
2015-17
*
32,204,752
Bellevue
2013-15
30,966,000
Spokane
2015-17
*
26,589,708
Clark
2013-15
36,910,000
Wenatchee
2015-17
*
27,651,753
Grays Harbor
2013-15
44,662,000
Whatcom
2015-17
30,223,426
Green River
2013-15 *
29,129,000
Seattle
Central
2013-15
16,890,000
* Includes
funding requested
for 2015-17 and
Yakima
2013-15for the new20,834,000
construction funding in 2017-19
designs.
Bates
2015-17 *
38,778,627
Big Bend
2015-17 *
35,237,513
Centralia
2015-17 *
32,437,226
Clover Park
2015-17 *
35,344,586
Columbia Basin
2015-17 *
15,044,190
Edmonds
2015-17 *
33,883,189
LAST MAJOR PROJECT
99
LIMIT COMPETITION ONE MORE TIME
WACTC recommended and the State Board agreed that the following ten colleges
are eligible to submit one proposal each for scoring and potential addition to the
SBCTC capital pipeline in 2017-19:
• Bellingham
• Cascadia
• Lake Washington
• Lower Columbia
• North Seattle
• Pierce Puyallup
• Skagit
• South Puget Sound
• Tacoma
• Walla Walla
These colleges are eligible because they have not had a major project funded
since 2011-13 nor are they already in the pipeline for a future request.
100
Major Project
Selection Criteria
Wayne Doty
Capital Budget Director
2017-19 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NEW MAJOR PROJECTS
SBCTC’s 2015-17 criteria updated with
input from WACTC, BAC, SS, IC, OFC and
SB staff.
Recommended by BAC Capital on
October 29, 2014.
Distributed to BAC and WACTC for
review on November 7, 2014.
Adopted with changes by WACTC on
December 11, 2014.
Adopted by the SB on February 5, 2015.
102
EVERY MAJOR PROJECT IS SCORED ON A 100 POINT SCALE
Overarching Criteria
Applies to every project. Has 23 potential points.
Matching
Criteria
Infrastructure
Criteria
Renovation
Criteria
Replacement
Criteria
New Area
Criteria
For projects with
non-state
funding.
For projects
with nonbuilding
infrastructure.
For projects
that include
renovation of
existing space.
For projects that
will demolish
existing space
and replace it
with new
construction.
For projects that
increase the
square footage
of a campus.
Category-specific criteria always totals 77 potential points.
103
MAJOR PROJECTS
PREVIOUS SCORES
104
SCORES FROM 2015-17 SELECTION
College
Big Bend
Spokane
Highline
Clover Park
Wenatchee
Olympic
Pierce Fort Steilacoom
South Seattle
Bates
Shoreline
Cascadia
Spokane Falls
Lake Washington
Walla Walla
Clark
Everett
Walla Walla
Bellingham
Grays Harbor
Type
New
New
New
2nd
New
2nd
New
2nd
2nd
New
New
2nd
New
New
2nd
2nd
New
New
2nd
Project Name
Priority GSF
Cost
Matching Renovation Replacement New Area
Professional-Technical1Education
76,140
Center
$ 32,323,585
*
0%
0%
100%
0%
Main Building South Wing
1 Renovation
57,818 $ 27,372,030
0%
88%
0%
12%
Health and Life Sciences
1
46,068 $ 26,244,275
0%
67%
18%
15%
Center for Advanced Manufacturing
1
62,478 Technologies
$ 36,182,420
0%
0%
95%
5%
Wells Hall Replacement
1
69,985 $ 33,340,115
30%
0%
28%
42%
Shop Building Renovation
1 **21,665 $ 7,348,000
0%
85%
0%
15%
Cascade Building Renovation
1
56,600
- Phase 3$ 31,300,012
0%
67%
0%
33%
Automotive Technology
1
45,590 $ 21,787,154
5%
71%
0%
24%
Medical Mile Health Science
1
70,000
Center $ 40,001,277
0%
0%
93%
7%
Allied Health, Science 1& Manufacturing
69,597 $ 39,741,193
15%
0%
79%
6%
Center for Science and1Technology
56,618 $ 33,955,000
0%
0%
0%
100%
Photography and Fine 1Arts 57,700 $ 31,753,000
0%
0%
76%
24%
Center for Design and 1Innovation
54,700 $ 30,849,133
3%
0%
0%
98%
STEM Education and Training
1
31,450
Center $ 17,498,943
11%
0%
0%
89%
North Clark County 1
69,000 $ 50,953,000
0%
0%
0%
100%
Learning Resource Center
1
69,800 $ 46,991,000
0%
0%
0%
100%
Workforce and Business
2 Development
25,650 $ 14,365,931
Center
0%
0%
29%
71%
Engineering, Technology
1 and34,120
Science $Center
19,319,796
3%
34%
0%
63%
Student Services and Instructional
1
69,985Building
$ 52,489,164
14%
0%
43%
43%
Score Rank
89.78 1
87.89 2
84.30 3
82.53 4
81.85 5
81.68 6
80.38 7
80.30 8
78.95 9
78.87 10
77.60 11
76.32 12
72.21 13
68.41 14
67.61 15
67.38 16
64.95 17
63.45 18
61.30 19
105
2015-17 PROJECT ELEMENT VERSUS RANK
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
% Renovation
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
There were moderate1
80%
100%
0%
correlations
between the
There was negligible
correlation between the
amount of match and
projects score. You could
not buy a project.
0%
20%
40%
60%
Rank
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0%
20%
40%
60%
20%
percent of building area
being renovated or replaced
and the project score.
19
% Replacement
Rank
Rank
Rank
% Matching
80%
100%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% New Area
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
There was a strong
negative correlation
between the percent of
new area in the project
and the project score.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
106
“BUT-FOR” PREFERENCE AGAINST NEW AREA IN 2015-17
Rank
But-for
College
Project Name
Matching Renovation Replacement New Area Preference
Big Bend
Professional-Technical0%
Education Center
0%
*
100%
0%
1
Spokane
Main Building South Wing
0% Renovation
88%
0%
12%
2
Highline
Health and Life Sciences
0%
67%
18%
15%
3
Clover Park
Center for Advanced Manufacturing
0%
0%Technologies
95%
5%
5
Wenatchee
Wells Hall Replacement
30%
0%
28%
42%
4
Olympic
Shop Building Renovation
0% **
85%
0%
15%
6
Pierce Fort Steilacoom Cascade Building Renovation
0%
- Phase
67%3
0%
33%
7
South Seattle
Automotive Technology
5%
71%
0%
24%
8
Bates
Medical Mile Health Science
0%
Center
0%
93%
7%
10
Shoreline
Allied Health, Science15%
& Manufacturing
0%
79%
6%
11
Cascadia
Center for Science and0%
Technology0%
0%
100%
9
Spokane Falls
Photography and Fine 0%
Arts
0%
76%
24%
12
Lake Washington
Center for Design and 3%
Innovation 0%
0%
98%
13
Walla Walla
STEM Education and Training
11% Center
0%
0%
89%
14
Clark
North Clark County 0%
0%
0%
100%
15
Everett
Learning Resource Center
0%
0%
0%
100%
16
Walla Walla
Workforce and Business
0%Development
0% Center 29%
71%
17
Bellingham
Engineering, Technology
3% and Science
34% Center 0%
63%
18
Grays Harbor
Student Services and Instructional
14%
0%
Building
43%
43%
19
107
“BUT-FOR” PREFERENCE AGAINST NEW AREA IN 2015-17
"But-for" % New Area
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Rank
Rank
% New Area
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
It would have been almost as
hard to get New Area points
without the 2015-17
selection’s 5% preference
against it.
108
CORRELATION WITH SIZE AND COST
Rank
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
10,000
Cost
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$/GSF
There were weak
correlations between
projects size or cost
and score.
Rank
Rank
GSF
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
$300
There was a strong
negative correlation
when cost per square
foot went up.
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
109
Condition
Rank
CORRELATION WITH BUILDING CONDITION
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
There was a strong
positive correlation
when the condition of
the buildings being
renovated or replaced
got worse.
146
Avg Cond Replaced
Avg Cond Renovated
Worse Condition 
730
110
MAJOR PROJECTS
SCORING WORKSHEETS
Available here - http://www.sbctc.edu/college/_f-budget-development.aspx
111
MY PROJECT
112
EXPECTED COST
113
CONSOLIDATED SCORE SHEET
114
MAJOR PROJECTS
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
115
IDENTIFICATION OF BUILDING NEEDS
Programmatic
Need
Minor Repairs by
Severity
Candidate for
Renovation
Space Deficit?
Yes
No
Candidate for
Replacement
Worse Condition
Facility Condition
Candidate for
Additional Area
116
IDENTIFICATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
Programmatic
Need
Minor Repairs by
Severity
Candidate for
Renovation
New Building?
Yes
No
Candidate for
Replacement
Worse Condition
Facility Condition
Candidate for New
Infrastructure
117
NEXT STEPS
P February 5, 2015 – State Board adoption of criteria

 March – April 2015 – Workshops on 2017-19 budget development process
 April 26, 2015 – Adjourn First 2015 Session
 December 2015 – College major project proposals due
 March 2016 – College minor program improvement project descriptions due
 May – June 2016 – State Board adoption of 2017-19 Capital Request
 September 2016 – Requests due to OFM
118