TABLE OF CONTENTS
Grays Harbor College
Facilities Master Plan
December 2007
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Facilities Master Plan Goals
Section 3: Conditions Assessment
Section 4: Proposed Solutions and Implementation Strategies
Section 5: Solutions and Diagrams:
Existing Campus Conditions
Long Range Plan
Section 6: Stormwater Management
Section 7: Telecommunications
Section 8: Community Education Centers
Appendix:
I.
Grays Harbor PUD Service Drawing
II.
2007 Master Plan Workshops Summary
III. 2005 Master Plan Diagrams
IV. 2005 Notes from Master Plan Workshops & Diagrams
V.
2003 Master Plan Diagrams
VI. 2001 Master Plan Diagrams
VII. 2005 Reports:
800 Building Assessment
Wetland Report
VIII. 2005 Facilities Condition Survey
IX. 2003 Facilities Condition Survey
Cover photography by Ben Benschneider courtesy of SRG Partnership Inc.
.
1. Introduction
Introduction
•
College Mission & Goals
•
Historical Context
Section 1: INTRODUCTION
Grays Harbor College celebrates its 77th year as a college with a culture of dedication to teaching and service to students. This culture was recognized and
commended by the Northwest Association of Schools and College Commission
on Colleges in their 2006 Accreditation Report. “There is much to commend at
Grays Harbor College including the dedicated employees who create a nurturing
environment for student growth and the general appearance and condition of the
physical campus.”
Grays Harbor College employees have a history of making personal sacrifices to
help keep the college operating. Although the College was established in 1930,
it was not until 1945 that faculty received their full annual payment for teaching
paid on a regular schedule. Faculty and staff have donated their time and expertise to help develop facilities for the college. This history has cultivated a
community that is used to creatively “making do” within limited resources.
The South Aberdeen campus as we know today was actually constructed by the
Aberdeen School District
with funding from the
sale of bonds approved
by the district’s citizens.
The design and construction
standards
were
those set by the K-12
system at that time, the
mid 1950’s. The standards then, far different than those of today, had a greater emphasis on speed
and economy of construction with less importance given to longevity and safety
of buildings.
Since 1967, when the community college system was organized statewide, the
college has requested and received capital funds from the state legislature for
repairs, minor works, and more recently, renovation of facilities. Through careful maintenance and prudent use of capital funds, the facilities continue to
function despite some of them being over 50 years old.
College Mission and Goals
Grays Harbor College is a learner-centered community college that exists to improve people’s lives through education.
Recognizing the worth of every individual, we offer choices and new beginnings
through accessible opportunities for life-long learning. We encourage the development of individuals’ potential and serve as a catalyst for positive change.
We carry out our mission by providing the highest quality comprehensive programs in:
• Academic transfer courses
• Basic education, literacy, and academic skill development
• Services and activities which facilitate student success
Cultural enrichment, intellectual inquiry and information services.
Further, we commit to:
• Attracting and retaining excellent faculty, staff and administration
• Focusing our services on, without limiting them to, the needs of the
people of Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties
• Celebrating diversity by promoting and practicing respect and tolerance for all
• Developing relationships with community organizations and institutions of learning
• Fostering ethical behavior and personal integrity
• Employing innovative strategies to enhance learning
• Using our resources effectively
• Addressing changes in our world in order to respond to emerging
needs
Promoting a vision of our college’s and our community’s role in Washington’s
future as a leading Pacific Rim trading and cultural center.
Historical Context
Grays Harbor College was conceived in 1929 by a group of Aberdeen citizens
under the leadership of Mr. W.O. McCaw and on August 7, 1930 was incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington. The College operated as a private institution from 1930 to
1945. In 1945, the Aberdeen School District assumed control of the college
and provided much needed
financial stability.
Since that time, Grays Harbor College has continued to
serve residents of this area,
offering academic, professional and technical courses at a reasonable cost and
close to home.
At the time of its founding, the College occupied the Franklin School building
on Market Street, but in 1934 moved to the A.D. Wood Schoolhouse on Terrace
Heights, where it remained until 1945 when it occupied the Samuel Benn
School Building. In 1955, the State Board of Education approved funds for the
construction of new college facilities, and Aberdeen Board of Education purchased a forty-acre tract on a hill overlooking Aberdeen, Hoquiam, and Chehalis River and the harbor.
The construction of the buildings – classrooms, science laboratories, library,
gymnasium, administrative offices, and student union – began during the summer of 1956. Classes opened in the completed buildings on January 6, 1958.
Grays Harbor College Campus 1964
In May 1961, the Choker Union Building was renamed the A.J. Hillier Building
in memory of Alfred J. Hillier, late professor of history and forensics coach. In
order to provide for an increase in enrollment, a new classroom building, an
administration building, and additions to the science building, the music
building, the gymnasium, and the A.J. Hillier Building (HUB) were completed
in September 1964. A new library opened in the fall of 1966, named after John
Spellman, long-time librarian at the College.
On July 1, 1967, Grays Harbor College was separated from the local school
district by legislative act and became a part of the state higher education system.
The continued growth of the college again demanded expansion of the physical
facilities, and two additional buildings were completed in April 1972. The
Physical Science Building (Building 800) is used by chemistry, physics, earth
sciences, and engineering classes.
The Vocational Building (Building
700) houses maintenance, automotive mechanics, machine shop, carpentry, and welding technology
classes. The Bishop Center for Performing Arts – funded primarily with
non-state dollars given by the Bishop
Foundation – was completed in the
spring of 1974.
The John M. Smith Aquaculture Center, a fish rearing facility, was dedicated in
1987. It was completed with donated funding, materials and labor.
Following a tradition of honoring long-time and well-respected administrators,
the Grays Harbor College Board of Trustees renamed Building 200 the Joseph A.
Malik Administration Building several
years ago, and in January 2000, Building
700 became the Jon V. Krug Industrial
Technology Building.
In keeping with the college’s commitment to distance learning and accessibility, four community
education centers operate in Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties.
• Columbia Education Center was constructed in Ilwaco, near Baker Bay, in
2006. This new facility replaced the Ilwaco Learning Center, opened in 1997.
• Riverview Education Center in Raymond was renovated and opened in
2001. This facility replaced the GHC on the Willapa – South Bend Center,
which opened in 1997.
• Whiteside Education Center, located in downtown, Aberdeen opened in
1998.
Simpson Education Center, located in Elma, opened in 1998.
Grays Harbor College also has class sites at Ocosta, North Beach, Taholah, Ilwaco, and Naselle high schools.
At the Aberdeen Campus, the
Jewell C. Manspeaker Instructional Building (2000 Building)
first served GHC students Fall
Quarter of 2007. This 71,800
gross square feet facility was
constructed to replace the 200,
400 and 600 Buildings. In addition to providing classrooms
and labs, the 2000 Building includes a music pavilion and accommodates the Business Office/Cashier, Human Resources, and faculty and
administrative offices.
Starting Winter Quarter of 2008,
the Automotive/Welding Technology Building will serve vocational
programs currently housed in the
700 Building. The 1900 Building
is 21,500 gross square feet and is
located east of the Diesel Technology Building (1800 Building). It is
planned that the programs of the
1800 Building and 1900 Building would be strengthened and enhanced with
the common location.
.
•
Refine Vehicular and Pedestrian
Circulation
•
Create a Lasting Impression
•
Minimize Sense of Isolation
•
Capitalize on Natural Setting
•
Promote Universal Design and Barrier
Free Attitude
•
Update Building Infrastructures
•
Landscaping Must Work with the
Surrounding Environment
2. Master Plan Goals
Facilities Master Plan Goals
Section 2: FACILITIES MASTER PLAN GOALS
The Facilities Master Planning process included
the use of professional consultants, faculty, staff
and students, and solicitation of input and ideas
from community members, the Grays Harbor
College Foundation Board, and the Board of
Trustees.
Because opportunities for receiving capital funds
to replace existing buildings were not available
until the 2001-03 Biennium, the campus strategy in the past has been to remodel and renovate
spaces on a piecemeal basis.
Planners and
maintenance crews have managed to keep the buildings functioning through a
series of repair and minor remodeling projects. These efforts have been effective for the short term. However, the task of facilities master planning requires
a long-term look at what can best support the mission and goals of the College.
During the Facilities Master Planning process, people were asked to examine
several difficult questions. Is it wise to make further investments in existing
buildings? Or have some buildings fulfilled their useful life and effectiveness?
What impression does the campus make to students and the community? How can we provide
better ADA access to campus? How well do the
facilities support the College’s mission and goals?
These questions released a new realm of thinking
and planning for college facilities. College members heard honest feedback from students and
community members that was often unflattering
about how the College presented itself. College
members became very energized about not just
“making do,” as faculty and staff considered new
possibilities for supporting programs and improving the teaching and learning environment for
Grays Harbor College.
Participants in the planning process gathered input about the strengths and weaknesses of the college campus and developed
the following Facility Master Plan goals:
•
Refine vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
Many of the original issues of a safe and clear entry to campus were addressed as part of the Library project. The college must be mindful of maintaining and cultivating ease of entry to the campus.
•
Create a “front door” that provides a positive first impression.
This was addressed dramatically with the construction of the new
Manspeaker Instructional
Building (2000 Building).
•
Prevent vehicles and pedestrians crossing paths
in unsafe ways.
•
The physical environment
must create a lasting impression that promotes
teaching and learning.
“The majority of the existing campus was designed
under the K-12 system model. As such, the structure of the campus
system of buildings and open spaces does not foster the desired social
and collegial interaction typically desired in institutions of higher education. The spatial structure of a K-12 complex is the result of a
higher need of student control.”
• Change the current impression of the college as the “high
school on the hill.”
• Create a campus that reflects and promotes the excellent and
up-to-date teaching that already occurs.
•
Minimize the sense of isolation.
When the campus was first constructed, views existed of the campus
from the city and vice versa. The College was a visible part of the
community. The growth of trees around the campus has eliminated
this view and created a greater sense of isolation. However, this isolation also has a positive side, creating a sense of arrival to the campus
and place of study.
The new Manspeaker Instructional Building also provided positive
movement toward fulfilling this goal.
• Exploit hilltop views of the City of Aberdeen and Lake Swano.
• Create a visual connection with the community.
• Maintain a collegiate campus setting.
•
Capitalize on the natural setting.
“The physical condition of the campus includes a significantly wooded hillside, territorial views, and a hillside bench of approximately 700 feet in depth, a lake and campus
development at the top and bottom of the
hill.” The natural setting of the campus
maintains the sense of the rural environment, which in turn reflects the heritage and
culture of Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties.
•
•
•
Create outdoor spaces that establish and identify places for
gathering.
Take advantage of the vegetation, topography, lake and watershed that create a beautiful campus setting.
Promote universal design and barrier free attitude.
The topography of the campus creates challenges for ease of movement throughout
the campus. Designs for buildings, landscape and infrastructure must promote accessibility and clarity of movement for all.
• Create easy and clear circulation around the campus.
• Improve the architectural design of the campus.
•
Update building infrastructures.
The current infrastructure barely keeps up with the demands created
by the use of technology in instruction and in administrative systems.
The aging facilities and infrastructure systems create more and more
challenges for effectively managing a preventative maintenance program. The College is and will continue to respond to energy conservation measures.
• Build infrastructures to better support programs – technology,
classrooms, labs, and support services.
• Create infrastructure systems that promote energy efficiency
and are easy to manage and maintain.
•
Landscaping plans must work in concert with the surrounding environment and adjacent buildings, both new and existing.
The College is surrounded by natural forests, characterized by dense
undergrowth and a mixture of evergreen and deciduous canopies.
While the wooded setting is beautiful, the campus can seem somewhat dark and enclosed. New campus landscaping needs to provide a
visual break from the native forests, setting a lighter, loftier, and more
open tone for the campus.
• Create planting beds that are low-maintenance and resistant to
pests and deer often present on campus, using native plant species.
• Respect
and
preserve,
when appropriate, physical campus traditions and
existing memorials.
.
Conditions Assessment
Aberdeen Campus
•
Riverview Education Center
•
Simpson Education Center
•
Whiteside Education Center
•
Columbia Education Center
3. Conditions Assessment
•
Section 3: CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT
Aberdeen Campus
The campus buildings can be arranged into three general categories depicted
on the “Existing Campus Conditions” map. These categories are determined by
the date of building construction, the timing and type of improvements and additions that have been made to a building, and by the consultant’s assessment
of building conditions.
The faculty and staff raised the following issues:
need a greater number of larger classroom spaces;
• functional relationships need to be improved – we currently send students
all over campus for basic services;
• restrooms throughout campus are problematic for accessibility;
• sound control is a big issue throughout the original 1957 buildings – noise
transmitting through walls of users of one classroom to another is a frequent distraction;
• need to update power and data to keep up with technology in the classroom;
• air quality, heating and ventilation in all classrooms is poor;
• facilities are an obstacle to creating change in curriculum; and
• buildings need to be brought up to date or replaced.
The 2003, 2005 and 2007 Facility Condition Surveys identify roof, structural,
site, electrical and HVAC deficiencies throughout the campus, most particularly in those facilities built in the late 1970’s. The latest review of the Campus
ADA Study identifies the need to upgrade restrooms, door latches, and walkways throughout the campus to improve accessibility.
SBCTC 2003, 2005 and 2007 Facility Condition Survey consultants agree with
the major concerns expressed by master planning consultants relating to the
1950’s-vintage facilities.
“Aside from its relatively small size, there are several concerns with
the 300 building, the biggest of which is with respect to structural
design. The feeling is that
there is a lack of structural resistance to lateral
forces in this building, a
lack of one-hour fireresistive corridors and
corridor relite glazing that
far exceeds the maximum
area of glazing allowed by the UBC for one-hour corridors. The
buildings are felt to have little or no resistance against wind and/
or seismic lateral forces, particularly in the east/west direction.
The poor thermal envelope of this building allows a constant drain
on valuable energy resources and results in increasing energy con-
sumption and operating cost. Exterior walls consist of eight
inches of concrete with 5/8” drywall furring strips without insulation. All windows are singe glazed in steel frames without thermal
breaks. There is minimal batt insulation at the roof. All of these
factors make the building impossible to operate in an energy-
efficient manner. The HVAC design standards in place at the time
of construction dictated outside air ventilation volumes that are
grossly insufficient when compared to today’s standards. This inefficient ventilation results in the odors from science labs spreading throughout the building. The increasing use of computers and
office machines has resulted in heat gains that load the HVAC
equipment well beyond original design parameters.
The major concerns with this facility, as well as the general inadequate
condition of most building and program amenities, make this facility a
prime candidate for replacement.”
The John Spellman Library (1500
Bldg.) was extensively renovated in
2003, which represented the first
fruit of the Master Planning process.
Completed in 2006, the Jewell C.
Manspeaker
Instructional
Building
(2000 Bldg.) replaced the 200, 400 and
600 Buildings.
Nearing completion in, the Automotive/Welding Technology Building
will open for use Winter Quarter of
2008. The Automotive and Welding
programs will move here from the
existing 700 Building.
Aberdeen Campus Infrastructure
Stormwater management on the Aberdeen campus has not been adequately
addressed. As the City of Aberdeen increasingly enforces State Dept. of Ecology regulations, the Facilities Master Plan must respond to these requirements
as future building sites are discussed. A stormwater management component
was added in 2005 and updated in 2007.
Telecommunications distribution has occurred in a hap-hazard manner over
the years on the Aberdeen campus. Poorly funded efforts have resulted in
minimally short-term solutions. A telecommunications distribution component
was added to the Facilities Master Plan in 2005 and revised in 2007.
Electrical power distribution on the Aberdeen campus is owned and maintained by the Grays Harbor PUD, based in Aberdeen. The College and PUD will
be working on an electrical distribution component for the Facilities Master
Plan. See PUD service drawing in the Appendix.
The buildings constructed after 1970 are good candidates for renovations and
minor remodels to improve their functionality and infrastructure systems. The
physical structures remain sound and cost-effective to upgrade.
The four community education centers in Grays Harbor and Pacific counties
are a variety of ages and conditions.
Riverview Education Center in Raymond
This facility, opened in 2001, had a $1.6 million renovation and is in excellent condition. Shortly thereafter,
the college completed a second phase of landscaping to
create a more finished appearance to the property and
to improve signage. The building has approximately
1,000 square feet of unfinished interior space for future
expansion of programs. The lot has adequate square
footage to allow for construction of vocational instruction space if there is future demand for expansion. This Center suffered extensive windstorm damage
and the Legislature granted the College $500,000 for repairs in late 2006.
Simpson Education Center in Elma
This facility, opened in 1997, is a prefabricated building
that houses three classrooms and one administrative office. The building is in adequate condition, but does not
meet the current and projected needs of the instructional programs. The computer classrooms are inadequate in size to accommodate the number of students
wishing to take some courses. There is also a need for
at least one more general classroom, as the projected demand requires finding
extra classroom space in the future.
Whiteside Education Center in Aberdeen
The Whiteside Center is a previous funeral home donated to the college. The building was renovated by the
college and opened in 1998. The location of the building
is ideal for serving the community need for Adult Basic
Education and English as a Second Language programs.
The building also houses the Families that Work program. The success of the location for these programs at the Whiteside Center
far exceeded what the college anticipated as demonstrated by the large number
of students who use the building on any given day. The building is frequently
“bursting at the seams.” Funds from the 2005-07 Capital Budget were used to
address structural problems identified in the 2003 Facility Condition Survey.
The size and configuration of the classrooms are not ideal and it is often challenging to meet the program demands within the facility. The college needs to
look long term at the viability of this facility. It is clear that the current location is ideal for serving a population of the community who are difficult to
reach, but who have critical educational needs.
Columbia Education Center in Ilwaco
In 2006, construction was completed on the
new Columbia Education Center, located in
Ilwaco near Baker Bay. This 6,342 gross
square feet building is wood frame construction with concrete grade slab, supported with
concrete spread footings bearing on structural fill. The new facility serves south Pacific County students with two general classrooms, a wet lab classroom, an interactive television (ITV) classroom, a computer lab, a resource room, offices, reception area and student lounge space,
as well as utility, maintenance and storage spaces.
.
Proposed Solutions & Implementation
Strategies
•
Capital Plan - December 1, 2007
4. Solutions & Strategies
Section 4: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Grays Harbor College’s Facilities Master Plan primarily addresses projects initiated over a 15-year period at the Aberdeen campus and the community education centers.
The challenge in developing implementation strategies was to
develop a series of projects that
accomplished the college’s longterm goals, while allowing the
campus to fully function without
disruption to services. The projects also incorporate building,
site and infrastructure improvements as a whole, in order to accomplish goals
in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.
The proposed series of projects include a variety of
funding sources – state capital funds, private funds,
and alternative financing. The College also consulted with representatives from the Aberdeen
School District, which owns property adjacent to the
College. While the school district has recently constructed a new high school, school district officials
are enthusiastic about exploring ideas for future
partnerships, perhaps involving vocational and recreational programs.
“Grays Harbor College
is in the mature
phase of its existence
in terms of overall facility age. A key issue that
will face the campus going forward is how best to
use and adapt its existing facilities, making costeffective choices in terms of remodeling and
renovation. The college will also have to adopt a
multi-year approach to programming recurring
maintenance and repairs and providing adequate
funding for preventative maintenance to critical
systems, especially in newer facilities.”
The proposed series of replacement and renovation projects will accomplish the master plan
goals, allow the college to be fully functioning, and create an inspiring campus
that will support and promote the long-term success of Grays Harbor College.
The Grays Harbor College Facilities Master Plan reflects the best thinking for
today. The creators of this plan are confident that we have created a solid basis for future directions and for changes that will inevitably occur over time.
Grays Harbor College
Capital Plan
December 1, 2007
No.
Project
Biennium/Task
Projects funded and currently in progress.
1.
Renovate 700
07-09 – Design
Building
07-09 - Construction
2.
3.
New Childcare
Center (1)
New Science,
Math & Art
(SMArt)
Building (2)
07-09
07-09
07-09
09-11
11-13
-
Design
Construction
Predesign
Design
Construction
Future project schedule.
1.
Renovate 800
09-11 - Design
Building
11-13 - Construction
Type/Funding
State – Renovation
project.
State – Matching
project.
State –
Replacement
project.
State – Repair &
Minor project.
2.
New Student
Services &
Instructional
Building
(3)
09-11 - Predesign
11-13 - Design
13-15 - Construction
State –
Replacement
project, COP with
student fees,
bookstore and food
service revenue.
3.
New Physical
Education &
Wellness Center
(4)
New Natural
Resource
Instructional
Center (5)
Future Growth
Building (6)
11-13 - Predesign
13-15 - Design
15-17 - Construction
State – Matching
project, COP with
student fees, and
private funds
State – Matching
project and private
funds
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Ball fields
Improvements
(7)
Future Growth
Building (8)
Future Growth
Building (9)
13-15 - Predesign
13-15 - Design
15-17 - Construction
13-15
15-17
17-19
15-17
17-19
-
Predesign
Design
Construction
Design
Construction
15-17
17-19
19-21
17-19
19-21
21-23
-
Predesign
Design
Construction
Predesign
Design
Construction
Program Description
Expand carpentry and yacht
finish carpentry program space.
Relocate and expand campus
maintenance shops and offices.
Student, staff and community
childcare.
Life Sciences, physical sciences,
nursing, math, art, general
classrooms, computer labs,
faculty offices and student study
spaces.
Convert existing labs to general
classrooms. Upgrade HVAC and
finishes for classrooms and
faculty offices. Use as surge
space for future projects.
Information center, records,
admissions, financial aid,
advising & counseling, learning
center, student government &
activities, WSU program,
computer science, IT, food
services instruction, cafeteria &
kitchen, bookstore.
Competition gym, fitness lab,
weight room, lockers, faculty
offices, and equipment storage.
Natural resource interpretive
center, conference and
instructional space and offices.
To be determined.
To be determined.
State – Matching
project and private
funds
To be determined.
Softball, baseball, and soccer
fields.
To be determined.
To be determined.
Page 13
To be determined.
.
Solutions and Diagrams
•
Existing Campus Conditions
•
Long Range Plan
5. Solutions & Diagrams
LEGEND
Flat/Gentle Slope
Steep Slope
EXISTING CAMPUS CONDITIONS
100 HILLIER UNION BUILDING (HUB)
•
•
Bookstore, Student Services, Food Services. 22,882 gsf
Constructed: 1957, Improvements: 1964 & 1993
200 JOSEPH A MALIK BUILDING
Pedestrian Circulation
Vehicular Circulation
Condition 1 Structure
Condition 2 Structure
Condition 3 Structure
Condition 1 Structure - Superior
•
•
•
•
New construction, major remodel, or recently
refurbished systems and finishes.
Maintained adequately with routine maintenance.
Little or no corrective maintenance required.
Little or no deferred maintenance.
Condition 2 Structure - Adequate
•
•
•
•
•
Finishes are generally worn but major systems
and overall facility is in reasonable shape.
Maintained adequately with routine maintenance.
Some minor work projects proposed to upgrade
system components and finishes.
Beginning to see some corrective maintenance.
Relatively small amount of deferred maintenance.
Condition 3 Structure - Needs Improvement
•
•
•
•
•
Facility has potential for imminent systems failure or is facing large repair costs.
Facility requires substantial maintenance effort.
Increased demands for corrective maintenance.
Substantial deferred maintenance.
Program changes cannot be accommodated in
existing building.
•
•
WSU Program, Student Services, IT. 12,435 gsf
Constructed: 1957, Improvements: 1964
300 BUILDING
•
•
Life Sciences, Art, Journalism. 14,765 gsf
Construction: 1957, Improvements 1964, 2000 & 2001
400 BUILDING
•
•
Vacant. 19,310 gsf
Construction: 1957
450 TECHNOLOGY BUILDING
•
•
WSU ITV Classroom, Computer Lab. 5,170 gsf
Construction: 1998
500 Building
•
•
Gymnasium, Fitness Center, Weight Training. 18,815 gsf
Construction: 1957, Improvements 1964 & 2001
700 Jon V Krug Industrial Technologies Building
•
•
Automotive, Welding, Carpentry, Maintenance. 23,305 gsf
Construction: 1971, Improvements 2006
800 Math & Physical Science Building
•
•
Classrooms, Labs. 18,240 gsf
Construction: 1971
900 Building
•
•
Childcare Center, 3,900 gsf
Construction: 1988
1500 John Spellman Library
•
•
Library, Media Technology, Learning Center, Gallery. 17,555 gsf
Construction: 1966, Improvements: 2003
1600 Bishop Center for Performing Arts
•
•
Auditorium seating for 440. 12,825 gsf
Construction: 1974, Improvements: 2003
1700 John M Smith Aquaculture Center
•
•
Fisheries Program. 3,855 gsf
Construction: 1984, Improvements 1997
1800 Diesel Technology Building
•
•
Shops, Classroom. 9,485 gsf
Construction: 1988
1900 Automotive/Welding Technology Building
•
•
Shops, Classrooms. 21,500 gsf
Construction: 2007
2000 Jewell C Manspeaker Instructional Building
•
•
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
Classrooms, Business Office, HR, Admin. Offices. 71,800 gsf
Construction: 2006
December 2007
PROJECTS
1. Childcare Center
Matching Project
2. Science, Math & Art (SMArt) Building
Replacement Project
3. Student Services & Instructional Building
Replacement Project
4. Physical Education & Wellness Center
Renovation Project
5. Natural Resources Center
Replacement Project
6. Future Growth Building
Program to be determined
7. Ball Fields Improvements
Matching Project, Private Funds
8. Future Growth Building
Program to be determined
9. Future Growth Building
Program to be determined
LONG RANGE PLAN
2007-09 Biennium
• Submit PRR for new Student Services & Instructional Building (3).
• Produce Predesign Study for new SMArt Building (2).
• Demolish 600 Building and provide parking improvements.
• Design and construct new Childcare Center (1).
• Submit intent for COP funds request for Student Serv./Instr. (3).
• Gain support for Student Serv./Instr. (3) and assess student fees.
• Move programs from the 400 & 450 Bldgs. into the 200 Bldg.
2009-11 Biennium
• Demolish 900 Building (old Childcare Center).
• Design new Science, Math and Art (SMArt) Building (2).
• Produce Predesign Study for new Student Services Center (3).
• Submit PRR for renovation of Physical Ed./Wellness Center (4).
2011-13 Biennium
• Produce Predesign Study for renovation of Phys. Ed./Well. Ctr. (4).
• Complete Predesign and Design of Natural Resource Center (5).
• Demolish 400 and 450 buildings.
• Construct new SMArt Building (2).
• Move Telecom head-end from 200 Building to SMArt Building..
• Move programs from 300, 800 and Nursing to SMArt Building..
• Design new Student Services & Instructional Building (3).
• Submit PRR for future growth building (6).
2013-15 Biennium
• Move programs from the 200 Building to the 800 Building.
• Demolish 200 and 300 Buildings.
• Construct new Student Services & Instructional Building (3).
• Move programs from 800/100 Bldgs. to Student Serv./Instr. (3).
• Design renovation of Physical Education/Wellness Center (4).
• Produce Predesign/Design for new Natural Resources Center (5).
• Produce Predesign Study for future growth building (6).
• Submit PRR for Ball Fields Improvements (7).
• Submit PRR for Predesign funds for future growth building (8).
2015-17 Biennium
• Demolish 100 Building
• Construct renovations of Physical Education/Wellness Center (4).
• Construct new Natural Resources Center )5).
• Move into Nat. Res. Cntr. (5) and demolish 1700 Building.
• Design future growth building (6).
• Design Ball Fields Improvements (7).
• Produce Predesign Study for future growth building (8).
• Submit PRR for Predesign funds for future growth building (9).
2017-19 Biennium
• Construct Ball Fields improvements (7).
• Construct future growth building (6).
• Design future growth building (8).
• Produce Predesign Study for future growth building (9).
2019-21 Biennium
• Demolish 800 Building.
• Construct future growth building (8).
• Design future growth building (9).
2021-23 Biennium
• Construct future growth building (9).
December 2007
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
.
6. Stormwater Mgmt
Stormwater Management
•
Existing Improvements
•
Discharge to Lake Swano
•
Discharge to Existing Conveyance
Systems
•
Dispersion or In-Ground
Infiltration/Storage
•
City of Aberdeen Input
•
Long Range Plan
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Existing or Currently Funded Improvements
These areas are either currently developed, and not planned for redevelopment
under the Facilities Master Plan, or were already funded for redevelopment at
the time of the latest master plan revision. These areas include existing parking lots that are to remain intact.
No additional detention required.
Discharge to Lake Swano
Stormwater from this area is currently discharged undetained to Lake Swano.
Under the (10) year plan, it is not anticipated that the overall impervious area
will significantly increase. Under the master plan, stormwater will continue to discharge to Lake Swano. If during the redevelopment, the overall impervious area increases, the weir system at Lake Swano
could be adjusted to provide detention for
any additional flows generated Any road
and parking areas would need to have water quality treatment. Storm drainage conveyance down to the lake would be via
pipes anchored to the slope with an energy
dissipater located prior to the outfalls.
No detention required.
Discharge to Existing Conveyance Systems
These areas currently discharge undetained mostly to the north. Road and
parking areas would require water quality
treatment.
On-site detention required.
Dispersion or In-Ground Infiltration/Storage
Stormwater from these areas could be discharged via dispersion into the surrounding forest using dispersion trenches or flow spreaders. The ball field areas would also require in-ground infiltration or storage. Water quality treatment for new roads and parking would be provided by the flow through existing vegetation where allowed. More topographical and soils information would
be needed to ensure the feasibility of this approach.
No detention required.
City of Aberdeen Input
From discussions with the City of Aberdeen, it is understood that flooding occurs when high tides combine with significant rainfall events. The following
suggestions from the City are intended to provide additional storage in the
global system.
•
•
Widen the ditch along the south side of Huntley Street to provide additional backwater storage for water flowing down Alder Creek during
high-flow storm events.
Construct a backwater overflow pond adjacent to Alder Creek to provide additional stormwater storage for Alder Creek.
As these alternatives involve land owned by the Department of Natural Resources and the City of Aberdeen, more study would be required. The City
would accept these improvements in lieu of constructing on-site detention facilities.
LEGEND
Existing Improvements to Remain or Currently
Funded Improvements
LONG RANGE PLAN
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Discharge to Lake Swano—No Detention
Required
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Discharge to Existing Conveyance Systems—
On-Site Detention required
EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TO REMAIN OR CURRENTLY FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS
• No additional detention required under the
master plan
Dispersion or In-Ground Infiltration/Storage—
No Detention Required
Water Quality Treatment Required
Points of Discharge
Conveyance Systems to be Constructed Concurrently with the 2011-2013 Biennium
PROJECTS
1. Childcare Center
Matching Project
2. Science, Math & Art (SMArt) Building
Replacement Project
3. Student Services & Instructional Building
Replacement Project
4. Physical Education & Wellness Center
Renovation Project
5. Natural Resources Center
Replacement Project
6. Future Growth Building
Program to be determined
7. Ball Fields Improvements
Matching Project, Private Funds
8. Future Growth Building
Program to be determined
9. Future Growth Building
Program to be determined
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
DISCHARGE TO LAKE SWANO - NO DETENTION
REQUIRED
• Currently discharges to Lake Swano undetained
• Redeveloped areas can continue to discharge
to Lake Swano undetained
• New roads and parking require water quality
treatment
DISCHARGE TO EXISTING CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS ON-SITE DETENTION REQUIRED
• Currently discharges undetained mostly to the
north
• Discharge from redeveloped areas must be
detained
• New roads and parking require water quality
treatment
DISPERSION OR IN-GROUND INFILTRATION/
STORAGE - NO DETENTION REQUIRED
• Stormwater would discharge via dispersion into
surrounding forest
• Ballfield areas require in-ground infiltration or
storage
• New roads and parking require water quality
treatment via flow through vegetation where
allowed
• Need more soils and topographic study to confirm this approach
CITY SUGGESTIONS
• Widen ditch along Huntley Street to provide
additional backwater storage
• Construct a backwater overflow pond for Alder
Creek
• Involves land owned by the City and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources;
more study required.
• City would accept these alternatives in lieu of
on-site detention.
December 2007
.
•
Goals & Objectives
•
Observations of Existing Conditions
•
Existing Conditions
•
Long Range Plan
7. Telecommunications
Telecommunications
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Goals & Objectives
Provide an underground, duct bank communications pathway and
infrastructure system that:
• Loops around the center of campus.
• Accommodates all communications cable types.
• Provides cabling flexibility and modified redundancy.
• Is consistent and coordinated with the Facilities Master Plan.
• Manages costs to fit available funding.
• Provides connectivity to all campus buildings.
• Is hidden from campus site lines and views.
• Provides easier cable installation and management.
• Provides for future expansion.
Observations of Existing Conditions
• Voice/Data networking originates in 200 Building, which will
eventually be demolished.
• Existing PBX (voice) and LAN (data) main equipment room space
utilization in 200 Building is at maximum capacity.
• A communications pathway between the new Manspeaker
Instructional Building (2000) and the 200 Building has been provided.
• Communications cable pathways are exposed on building exteriors
and roof tops.
• Exposed communications pathways are attached to structures that
are to be demolished.
• Conduit pathways are in a state of disrepair.
• Conduit pathways are not continuous, often pulled apart, thus
exposing cables to potential damage.
• Communications cables are daisy-chained between buildings, causing
visits to multiple locations to connect services.
EXISTING CAMPUS CONDITIONS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
LEGEND
Existing Roof/Walkway Supported Cable
Existing Underground Cable
Qwest Owned Cable
Existing Communications Vault
December 2007
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
LONG RANGE PLAN
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
LEGEND
Existing
New
Vaults
Head End
1. New Child Care Center
2. New SMArt Building
3. Physical Education &
Wellness Center
Renovation
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
1. New Child Care Center
• Construct vault at top of Edward P. Smith Drive and
ductbank extension to new Child Care Center (1).
• Construct ductbank from vault at top of Edward P.
Smith Drive to vault at 1500 Building (Library).
2. New SMArt Building
• Construct vault south of New SMArt Building (2)
• Relocate Head End to SMArt Building (2).
• Construct ductbank from new vault south of SMArt
Building (2) to new Head End location.
• Construct ductbank from vault south of SMArt Building (2) to 700 Building.
• Construct vault in commons area west of Student
Services Building (3) and ductbank extenstion to Student Services Building (3).
• Construct ductbank to vault west of future growth
building (8).
3. Physical Education & Wellness Center
• Construct ductbank from vault at top of Edward P.
Smith Drive to vault south of SMArt Building (2).
• Construct ductbank extenstion to Physical Education
& Wellness Center (4)
December 2007
.
Community Education Centers
Location Map
•
Columbia Education Center
•
Riverview Education Center
•
Simpson Education Center
•
Whiteside Education Center
8. Community Education
•
COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTERS
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
6
5
3
2
4
9
10
8
7
11
1
12
15
15
14
1. Entry
2. Student Lounge
3. Women’s Restroom
4. Men’s Restroom
5. Resource Room
6. Office
7. Reception
8. Work Study
9. Computer Classroom
10. ITV Classroom
11. Storage
12. Telecom
13. Storage/Janitor
14. Wetlab/Classroom
15. Classroom
13
COLUMBIA EDUCATION CENTER
•
•
•
6,342 GROSS SQUARE FEET
COMPLETION DATE: APRIL 2006
CONSTRUCTION COST: $1,159,000
The new Columbia Education Center (formerly
the Ilwaco Education Center) was constructed
in 2006 near Baker Bay. Site improvements
include (2) accessible parking spaces and (30)
standard parking spaces. The general building
construction is wood frame with concrete grade
slab and concrete spread footings bearing on
structural fill. This new facility is enclosed with
vinyl windows, lap siding and asphalt roof shingles.
FLOOR PLAN
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
December 2007
10
8
9
11
7
1
6
17
16
17
4
1
17
2
3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Storage
Faculty Area
Women’s Restroom
CELL Center
Meeting / Classroom
Staff Lounge
Men’s Restroom
Utility
Janitorial
Elevator Mechanical
Classroom
Student Commons
Sciences Lab
Computer Lab
I.T.V Classroom
Entry
Offices
Resource Room
Reception
RIVERVIEW EDUCATION CENTER
1
SHORT TERM GOALS:
7
11
•
1
14
•
1
15
17
LONG TERM GOALS:
19
18
12
11
9
13
•
Construct Vocational Education facility.
11
3
1
Lower Level Floor Plan
Improve lower floor storage spaces into
classrooms as required by demand.
Provide parking lot, landscaping and other
site improvements.
•
•
•
12,660 Gross Square Feet
Original Construction: 1925
Improvements: 2002
Upper Level Floor Plan
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
December 2007
SIMPSON EDUCATION CENTER
SHORT TERM GOALS:
•
•
•
Improve access issues.
Provide space for student services—break
and vending area.
Improve landscaping
LONG TERM GOALS:
•
•
3,728 Gross Square Feet
Original Construction: 1998
•
•
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
Expand ITV classroom capacity as enrollment growth demands.
Improve data connectivity.
December 2007
8
10
WHITESIDE EDUCATION CENTER
9
RECENT IMPROVEMENTS:
3
•
5
6
5
1
2
2
5
3
3
3
1. Lobby
2. Elevator
3. Classroom
4. Lounge
5. Storage
6. Mechanical Room
7. Computer Link Room
8. Office
9. Restroom
10. Infant Center
•
5
1
SHORT TERM GOALS:
8
3
Upper Level Floor Plan
•
6
Perform typical preventative maintenance.
9
LONG TERM GOALS:
9
•
3
8
•
•
•
8
4
Repair Foundation and floor between original building and “Garage” addition.
Repair foundation and deck of front entry
porch.
1
5,396 Gross Square Feet
Original Construction: 1925
Improvements: 1998, 2000
Explore partnerships and alternative facility
within current geographic area.
3
Main Level Floor Plan
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
December 2007
.
Appendix
I.
Grays Harbor PUD Service Drawing
II.
2007 Master Plan Workshops
Summary
III.
2005 Master Plan Diagrams
IV.
2005 Notes from Master Plan
Workshops & Diagrams
V.
2003 Master Plan Diagrams
VI.
2001 Master Plan Diagrams
VII.
2005 Reports
800 Building Assessment
Wetland Report
VIII.
2007 Facilities Conditions Survey
IX.
2005 Facilities Conditions Survey
X.
2003 Facilities Conditions Survey
9. Appendix
I
Grays Harbor PUD Service Drawing
II
2007 Master Plan Workshops Summary
WORKSHOPS SUMMARY
2007 Facilities Master Plan Grays Harbor College
Workshop Dates:
May 21, 2007
06-44
June 8, 2007
Long Term Master Plan Tweaks
1. Daycare Center site location (1) is confirmed as shown on 2005 Facilities Master Plan.
2. New SMArt Building (2) has moved north.
3. Student Services Center (3) has moved north.
4. New Growth Building (6) is different shape based on moving SMArt Building north.
5. New Growth Building (8) is different shape due to new condition (the tree circle) at Malik
Commons.
Parking Implications
6. The parking to south of SMArt Building, on upper campus, has been modified. We do not have a
detailed survey of this area, but based on what we have, the parking layout has been adjusted to
better respond to contours of the site behind the former 600 Building footprint. More parking
spaces could be squeezed in with more earthwork, tree removal and retaining walls. This is an
“upper level” lot that would require steps down (maybe 8-10 feet of change) and ramps to a
crosswalk over the roadway to the entry between SMArt site (2) and Physical Education/Wellness
Center (4).
7. There is close-in parking (about 25 stalls) just to south of SMArt Building along the roadway that
would be on level with campus. These spaces could be designated as short-term/visitor and ADA
parking.
8. In the long-term analysis, there is a net add of approximately (87) parking stalls to all of upper
campus. This includes the loss of parking spaces at the new Daycare Facility area and adding the
full upper lot south of the SMArt Building.
Latest Thinking on the 800 Building
9. Past discussions have included major renovation and addition to this building, changing its
primary use and giving it a more public face to the commons area, to demolition.
10. Our conclusion, at this point, is to keep this building for at least (10) to (15) years and use it as
surge space to accommodate flow of program space from existing to new facilities, during
construction periods.
11. Minor and Repair projects could upgrade the HVAC systems, convert labs into general
classrooms and provide basic finish upgrades to allow the building to serve in this capacity.
Harbor Architects
Page 1
III
2005 Master Plan Diagrams
LEGEND
Flat/Gentle Slope
HUNTLEY STREET
Steep Slope
Pedestrian Circulation
BO
ON
E
LEWIS STREET
STR
EET
Vehicular Circulation
Condition 1 Structure
W. LOMAX STREET
•
•
•
•
•
•
2300
•
•
2000
1800
2000
1900
800
100
200
•
•
•
•
New construction, major remodel, or recently
refurbished systems and finishes.
Maintained adequately with routine maintenance.
Little or no corrective maintenance required.
Little or no deferred maintenance.
Finishes are generally worn but major systems
and overall facility is in reasonable shape.
Maintained adequately with routine maintenance.
Some minor work projects proposed to upgrade
system components and finishes.
Beginning to see some corrective maintenance.
Relatively small amount of deferred maintenance.
Facility has potential for imminent systems failure or is facing large repair costs.
Facility requires substantial maintenance effort.
Increased demands for corrective maintenance.
Substantial deferred maintenance.
Program changes cannot be accommodated in
existing building.
500
200 BUILDING
•
•
Administration, Music, 12,435 gross square feet.
Constructed: 1957, Improvements: 1964
300 BUILDING
•
•
Life Sciences, Art, Journalism, 14,765 gross square feet.
Construction: 1957, Improvements 1964, 2000 & 2001
400 BUILDING
•
•
Social Sciences, 19,310 gross square feet.
Construction: 1957
Technology, 5170 gross square feet.
Construction: 1998
500 Building
•
•
Physical Education, 18,815 gross square feet.
Construction: 1957, Improvements 1964 & 2001
700 Building
•
•
Vocational/Technical Maintenance, 23,305 gross square feet.
Construction: 1971, Improvements 2006
800 Building
•
•
Physical Sciences, 18,240 gross square feet
Construction: 1971
900 Building
•
•
Childcare Center, 3,900 gross square feet
Construction: 1988
1500 Building
•
•
Library, 17,555 gross square feet
Construction: 1966, Improvements: 2003
1600 Building
•
•
Bishop Performing Arts Center, 12,825 gross square feet
Construction: 1974, Improvements: 2003
1700 Building
•
•
Aquaculture, 3,855 gross square feet
Construction: 1984, Improvements 1997
1800 Building
•
•
300
400
Constructed: 1957, Improvements: 1964 & 1993
450 BUILDING
LAKE
SWANO
1500
•
Bookstore, Student Services, Food Services, 22,640 gross square
feet.
Condition 3 Structure
Condition 3 Structure - Needs Improvement
•
•
•
•
Condition 2 Structure - Adequate
1600
100 BUILDING
Condition 2 Structure
Condition 1 Structure - Superior
•
EXISTING CAMPUS CONDITIONS
Heavy Equipment Shop, 9,485 gross square feet
Construction: 1988
1900 Building
•
•
450
Vocational, 21,500 gross square feet
Construction: 2006
2000 Building
•
•
700
900
Instructional Building, 71,800 gross square feet
Construction: 2006
2300 Building
•
•
0
60
120
240
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
Vocational Storage, 960 Gross Square Feet
Construction: 1997
December 2005
LEGEND*
HUNTLEY STREET
2007-09 Biennium
2009-11 Biennium
2011-13 Biennium
7
BO
2013-15 Biennium
LEWIS STREET
ON
E
STR
EET
7
2015-17 Biennium
Project Initiation
1. Science & Math Building
Replacement Project (300 & 800 Buildings)
W. LOMAX STREET
2. Childcare Center
Matching Project
3. Instructional/Technology Building
Renovation Project
1600
4. Hillier Union Building
Replacement Project, S & A Fees
Bookstore & Food Services Revenue
5. Physical Education Building
Matching Project. COP with
Student Fees, Private Funds
2300
2000
2000
6. Natural Resource Instruction Center
& Interpretive Center
1800
6
Matching Project, Private Funds
3
7. Ball Fields Improvements
1900
Matching Project, Private Funds
8. Classroom Building
8
2
Growth Project
1500
LAKE
SWANO
4
6
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
2005-07 Biennium
• Complete construction of Manspeaker Instructional
Building (2000 Building).
• Design and construct renovation and expansion
(1900 Building) of 700 Building.
• Demolish 600 Building after Manspeaker Instructional Building (2000 Building) is constructed and
expand existing parking.
*
PROJECTS
5
LONG RANGE PLAN
2007-09 Biennium
• Design new Science/Math Building (1).
• Design and construct new Childcare Center (2).
• Demolish 900 Building after Childcare Center (2) is
constructed and expand existing parking.
• Demolish 400 & 450 Buildings.
2009-11 Biennium
• Construct Science/Math Building (1).
• Demolish 200 and 300 Buildings after Science/Math
Building (1) is constructed.
• Design renovation/expansion of 800 Building (3).
• Design new Hillier Union Building (4).
• Design new Physical Education Building (5).
2011-13 Biennium
• Construct renovation/expansion of 800 Building (3).
• Construct Hillier Union Building (4).
• Demolish 100 Building after Hillier Union Building
(4) is constructed.
• Construct Physical Education Building (5).
• Demolish 500 Building after Physical Education
Building (5) is constructed.
• Design new Natural Resource Instructional Center
(6).
2013-15 Biennium
• Construct Natural Resource Instructional Center (6) &
Interpretive Center (6).
• Reconstruct main campus entry.
• Design and construct Ball field Improvements (7).
2015-17 Biennium
• Produce Predesign study for new Classroom Building
(8).
1
2017-19 Biennium
• Design new Classroom Building (8).
700
2019-21 Biennium
• Construct Classroom Building (8).
0
100
200
400
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
December 2005
IV
2005 Notes from Master Plan Workshops
Diagrams
DISCUSSION NOTES - WORKSHOP 1
2005 Facilities Master Plan Grays Harbor College
Meeting Date: February 23, 2005
Time: 1:00-4:30 p.m.
04-37
Place: Room 1512, Library
Master Planning Process
1. Necessary component of SBCTC capital funding process.
2. Close collaboration with College, consultants, community, business.
3. Good planning produces results.
- First Facilities Master Plan identified the Manspeaker Instructional Building as number one
replacement priority and College will be breaking ground the first part of April.
- Ilwaco Educational Facility scored highest of all CTC projects and new Vocational Building
(automotive and welding) for GHC scored in upper half. Hopefully, funding for both of these
projects will be forthcoming during this Legislative session.
4. Identify and embrace central story, or theme, of campus.
Review 2003 Facilities Master Plan Goals and Directions
1. Main Campus – 1620 Edward P. Smith Drive.
2. Community Education Centers:
Ilwaco, Riverview (Raymond), Simpson (Elma), Whiteside (Downtown Aberdeen)
- Replace the Whiteside Education Center building.
- Decide on commitment to East County. Get program into better facility.
New for 2005 – Main Campus
1. Broad and free discussion of the future visions of Grays Harbor College. Discuss previous goals.
Examine emerging needs and new directions. Revise goals.
- Is there a future for Grays Harbor College as a 4-year institution? Enhance partnership with
WSU and/or other 4-year colleges.
- Should student housing be considered? This prospect could change the entire campus
dynamic (roadways, parking, building hours).
- Formalize campus organization: lower campus: vocational emphasis,
cultural/entertainment/athletic events; upper campus: academic emphasis.
- Develop campus in responsible manner. Examine student usage and pattern changes as a
result of development. What will be needed to properly serve these changes.
- Expand “attractor” programs. New programs should be rooted in community strengths and
needs, not because it is unique and not offered elsewhere.
- Draw public “into” campus, not just around perimeter.
- Generate revenue on campus through public events. Draw spectators to athletic events.
- Enhance Lake Swano watershed and improve access and visibility Consider regarding
outdoor commons to “lower” viewing angle of Lake. Work towards model watershed, stream
restoration, fish ladder.
- Develop Fisheries Interpretive Center.
- Identify and inventory natural resources, paying attention to quality and high-hazard areas.
Campus development can impact Swano watershed. Sedimentation rate is reported to be (2)
inches per year, primarily from off-site sources.
- Enhance Natural Resources Program: renewable energy (solar, wind), sustainable
development.
- Provide capability to host seminars, conferences, short-term programs, etc.
Harbor Architects
February 23, 2005
Page 1
DISCUSSION NOTES - WORKSHOP 1
2005 Facilities Master Plan Grays Harbor College
04-37
- Create architectural “focal point” for upper campus (fountain, clock tower).
- Examine small project options that may generate donations for private funding opportunities.
2. Science & Technology Building.
3. Physical Education/Athletics Replacement.
- Replacement project should be on lower campus, relating to existing athletic fields and
parking.
- Gymnasium for athletic events should accommodate 1,000 spectators.
- Fitness Center, Weight Room, etc. housing physical education programs should be integral
part of project.
- New facility would be helpful in recruiting student-athletes. Summer sport camps would be
more viable opportunity.
4. HUB Replacement. Now that athletics/physical education programs may relocate to lower
campus, site of present 500 Building is available for new Student Services Center (HUB).
- Adjacent to main campus entry and drop-off/pick-up.
- Food services component more accessible to service and delivery vehicles.
- Good view of campus outdoor commons.
- Location would allow, through vertical circulation, connection of multiple levels of upper
campus, including parking at present location of 600 Building.
- Seriously consider a large, flexible, multi-purpose room, or rooms, for Conference Center,
student and/or staff gatherings, high school recruiting/orientation programs, community uses
(trade shows, auctions, wedding receptions).
- Group social and retail services together. Perhaps all current HUB activities do not need to be
in same building or location.
5. Day Care Replacement.
- Should be near transit stop.
6. ADA Compliance.
- Create “one level” upper campus to improve accessibility.
- Provide multiple building access points for easier access.
7. Circulation and Parking: Faculty, Staff, Student State Vehicles. Accessibility.
- Consider completing loop road around campus.
- Improve access to emergency vehicles on upper campus.
- Place public buildings in prominent, easy to find locations.
- Improve service deliveries to food services and shipping/receiving.
8. Shipping/Receiving.
- Consider “drive-through” capability for registration, etc.
9. Landscaping.
10. Covered Walkway Connections
-Examine opportunities to connect buildings via covered walkways.
Miscellaneous New Components
1. In-depth analysis of existing 800 Building to judge capabilities of conversion into Student
Services, Food Service (HUB).
- Many teachers like the building for instructional purposes.
-Bearing wall structural concept makes remodeling difficult. Preliminary assessment may
indicate the future of this building lies more in an instructional use, rather than student
Harbor Architects
February 23, 2004
Page 2
DISCUSSION NOTES - WORKSHOP 1
2005 Facilities Master Plan Grays Harbor College
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
04-37
services, dining, etc.
- The building is inefficient in plan. Infill of offices at lower level could increase efficiency.
Great views of Lake Swano from faculty offices.
- Enclosing the exterior stairs may be a good thing.
- Addition of glass wall and lobbies on campus side would provide a “second side” to the
building, provide another access to classrooms and provide improved circulation.
- Ice and frost on new bridge to upper level creates problems for maintenance staff.
- Hard surfaces at lower floor instructional spaces need acoustic improvements.
With shifted emphasis from 800 Building to 500 Building for new HUB, some preliminary
assessments of the existing 500 Building are in order.
- Existing Gym structure could be utilized for gathering/meeting space. Addition of a
mezzanine in this space could add functional and programmatic options.
- Removing infill walls and adding glazing would make existing building more desirable.
- The lower structure surrounding the Gym should probably be demolished.
- Programmatically, the building could be used as the new Student HUB and/or conference
center. The bookstore and food services would work well here.
Telecommunications Systems.
Electrical Distribution.
Storm Water Management.
Water & Fire Flow
Natural Gas Distribution.
Lake Swano Dam
- Existing earth dam at base of Lake Swano will require future improvements.
Harbor Architects
February 23, 2004
Page 3
DISCUSSION NOTES - WORKSHOP 2
2005 Facilities Master Plan Grays Harbor College
Meeting Date: April 7, 2005
Time: 11:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m.
04-37
Place: Room 1512, Library
Institution Goals
1. Expand “attractor”programs. New programs should be rooted in community strengths and needs.
2. The College becomes a 4-year institution or strengthens partnership with 4-year institution.
3. Draw the public “into”campus, not just around the perimeter.
4. Generate revenue on campus through public events. Draw and accommodate paying spectators to
athletic events.
5. Balance ecological preservation/enhancement with sustainable development.
6. Be able to attract and accommodate large gatherings of people for seminars, conferences and
short-term programs.
Building & Property Goals
1. Move away from north/south original grid towards “shifted”grid aligning with downtown
Aberdeen and New Instructional Building gateway.
2. Develop a “commons”on upper campus. Improve views and access of Swano Lake from
commons. Move toward “defined commons”concept with buildings ringing the entire upper
campus.
3. Unify and formally organize activity types.
Lower Campus: vocational emphasis, cultural/entertainment/athletic events.
Upper Campus: academic emphasis, student services.
4. Improve universal accessibility to parking and building facilities. Create “one level”at upper
campus from various existing elevations.
5. Determine highest and best use for existing 800 Building.
6. Create an architectural “focal point”for upper campus.
Explore options for private funding.
Campus Building Improvements
1. Construct new Science & Technology Building on upper campus. Important to consider where
science education is heading and what the programmatic/physical space requirements will be.
2. Construct new Vocational Education Building (automotive, welding) on lower campus.
3. Replace existing physical education and athletics facility.
Locate on lower campus.
Accommodate 1,000 spectators at events housed in Gym.
Consider relocating shipping and receiving to new facility.
4. Replace student services center (HUB). Location should be easily accessible from all edges of
campus.
Existing 500 Building location seems very logical.
Open facility up to campus views.
Connect various upper campus elevations via internal, vertical circulation elements.
Include large, flexible, multi-purpose room, or rooms for conference/reception center.
5. Replace Day Care Facility. This facility needs to be replaced immediately. How will day care be
used during the day? Night? Should it be paired up with another building or be “stand alone”.
6. Maintain 800 Building for educational purposes.
Infill faculty offices at lower level.
Harbor Architects
April 7, 2005
Page 1
DISCUSSION NOTES - WORKSHOP 2
2005 Facilities Master Plan Grays Harbor College
04-37
Enclose existing exterior stairs. Eliminate ice and frost problems on bridge to upper level.
Provide glass-walled lobby/circulation addition on campus side to improve appearance and access
to classrooms.
7. Provide Fisheries Interpretive Center.
Campus Infrastructure Improvements
1. Developing a “loop road”around campus will be extremely difficult. Poor soils along east edge of
campus presents costly challenge. There was general consensus that “Modified Terminus”scheme
seemed like the most appealing option as long as the terminus allowed easy service access to the
buildings.
2. Develop reliable and invisible telecommunications distribution system for entire campus.
3. Examine necessary electrical distribution improvements to serve improvements.
4. Develop storm water management strategy and construct necessary collection, treatment and
storage devices.
5. Assess existing campus water distribution system and identify necessary improvements for fire
flow.
6. Extend natural gas distribution system throughout remainder of campus.
7. Examine opportunities to connect buildings via covered walkways.
8. Provide necessary improvements to Lake Swano earth dam.
9. Be on lookout for additional campus storage opportunities.
Harbor Architects
April 7, 2004
Page 2
DISCUSSION NOTES - WORKSHOP 3
2005 Facilities Master Plan Grays Harbor College
Meeting Date: April 25, 2005
Time: 1:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m.
04-37
Place: Room 1512, Library
Upper Campus Development
1. Transit service must be provided to Day Care. Perhaps this should be part of a larger loop.
2. The new HUB location should develop a central campus focal point. Create a new axis from
“front door” campus entry to west. Service access is a big challenge.
Lower Campus Development
1. Proceed with wetland delineation in area west of student parking. Area east of student parking is
totally “wet”.
2. A secondary access to Boone Street may be desirable.
3. Fields should be constructed to competitive standards and be lighted.
4. New parking must be created to offset loss from construction of new athletic facility. Parking
should be nestled within the trees. Distance from parking to Bishop Center is a concern. 440 seats
in Bishop Center, 1,000 spectators in athletic facility. Will events in these two facilities be
scheduled on the same date? Keep parking more central.
5. Should we develop a student housing component? No food service, apartment type units. What
about security? Student housing should be off-campus provided by private development. There is
a need for open space, but it does not necessarily mean a soccer field.
Miscellaneous Comments
1. What about fountain(s). Possible locations may be open commons and termini loops.
Harbor Architects
April 25, 2005
Page 1
V
2003 Master Plan Diagrams
LEGEND
Steep Topography
Flat Topography
Pedestrian Circulation
Vehicular Circulation
Condition 1 Structure
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bookstore, Student Services, Food Services, 22,640 gross square
feet.
Constructed: 1957, Improvements: 1964 & 1993
200 BUILDING
•
•
Administration, Music, 12,435 gross square feet.
Construction: 1957, Improvements 1964
300 BUILDING
•
•
Life Sciences, Art, Journalism, 14,765 gross square feet.
Construction: 1957, Improvements 1964
400 BUILDING
Condition 3 Structure
450 BUILDING
New construction, major remodel, or recently refurbished systems and finishes.
Maintained adequately with routine maintenance.
Little or no corrective maintenance required.
Little or no deferred maintenance.
Finishes are generally worn but major systems and
overall facility is in reasonable shape.
Maintained adequately with routine maintenance.
Some minor work projects proposed to upgrade system components and finishes.
Beginning to see some corrective maintenance.
Relatively small amount of deferred maintenance.
Condition 3 Structure - Needs Improvement
•
•
•
•
Condition 2 Structure - Adequate
•
100 BUILDING
Condition 2 Structure
Condition 1 Structure - Superior
•
EXISTING CAMPUS CONDITIONS
Facility has potential for imminent systems failure or is
facing large repair costs.
Facility requires substantial maintenance effort.
•
•
Social Sciences, 19,310 gross square feet.
Construction: 1957
Technology, 5170 gross square feet.
Construction: 1998
500 Building
•
•
Physical Education, 18,815 gross square feet.
Construction: 1957, Improvements 1964
600 Building
•
•
Nursing, General, Faculty Offices, 14,940 gross square feet.
Construction: 1964
700 Building
•
•
Vocational/Technical Maintenance, 23,305 gross square feet.
Construction: 1971
800 Building
•
•
Physical Sciences, 18,240 gross square feet
Construction: 1971
1500 Building
•
•
Library, 17,555 gross square feet
Construction: 1966, Improvements: 2003
1600 Building
Substantial deferred maintenance.
•
•
Program changes cannot be accommodated in existing
building.
1700 Building
Increased demands for corrective maintenance.
•
•
Bishop Performing Arts Center, 12,825 gross square feet
Construction: 1974, Improvements: 2003
Aquaculture, 3,855 gross square feet
Construction: 1984, Improvements 1997
1800 Building
•
•
Heavy Equipment Shop, 9,485 gross square feet
Construction: 1988
1900 Building
•
•
•
DayCare Center, 3,900 gross square feet
Construction: 1988
2300 Building
•
•
0
60
120
240
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
Vocational Storage, 960 Gross Square Feet
Construction: 1997
December 2003
LEGEND
Existing Buildings
New Buildings
Existing Pedestrian Bridges
New Covered Walkway
PROJECTS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Construct Replacement Building One
Demolish 200, 400, 450 and 600 Buildings
Convert site of 600 Building to parking
Construct Replacement Building Two
Demolish 300 Building
Construct addition Three to expand 700
Building.
SHORT TERM CONCEPT
GOALS ACCOMPLISHED:
Refine Vehicular and pedestrian circulation
• Re-defines and clarifies entry to campus.
• Moves pedestrian traffic away from traffic intersections.
• Creates new “front door for the campus.”
Promote teaching and learning.
• Begins demolition of old “high school” looking buildings.
• Creates up-to-date classroom and faculty office
spaces.
• Clusters humanities, arts, music, adult basic education, classrooms, and faculty offices.
• Moving administration allows the future expansion of
the 800 Building.
• Clusters sciences, math, nursing, computer science
and faculty offices.
Minimize the sense of isolation
• Re-opens the view of the campus to the community
• Moves the functions from the 600 Building, currently
at the outer edge of campus, to the middle of campus
Capitalize on the natural setting
• Begins to open views to Lake Swano from the commons area
• Expands the commons area
• Creates an outdoor plaza between the new building
and the HUB.
Promote universal design and barrier free attitude
• Supplements “cardiac lane” and creates better connection between the upper and lower parts of campus.
• Moves accessible parking to a better location that will
be more easily connected to other parts of the campus.
Update building infrastructures
• All projects incorporate new infrastructure systems for
data, electrical and HVAC.
• Each building project will be converted to a HVAC
system with common controls that will create energy
efficiency and be easier to maintain.
0
60
120
240
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
December 2003
LEGEND
MID TERM CONCEPT
Existing Buildings
New Buildings
GOALS ACCOMPLISHED:
Existing Pedestrian Bridges
Refine vehicular and pedestrian circulation
• Clarify the parking for ease of use.
New Pedestrian Bridges
New Covered Walkway
Promote teaching and learning
• Complete demolition of “high school” like buildings
• Promote partnerships with the local school districts
for vocational and recreational programs.
Minimize the sense of isolation
• Campus is grouped together to promote better connections between buildings
PROJECTS:
•
•
•
•
•
Renovate 800 Building
Construct new addition Four to expand 800
Building.
Construct new Building Five
Construct view point near Building Two.
Construct new Building Six with possible
partners.
Capitalize on the natural setting
• Commons area is opened up to take advantage of
view to Lake Swano
• View point is constructed to take advantage of views.
• Expand outdoor plaza between 100 Building and
Buildings 1 & 4.
• 800 Building takes advantage of view to Lake Swano
with functions that promote social and community
interaction.
Promote universal design and barrier free attitude
• Campus is grouped together to promote better access
between buildings.
Update building infrastructures
• All projects incorporate new infrastructure systems for
data, electrical and HVAC.
• Each building project will be converted to a HVAC
system with common controls that will create energy
efficiency and be easier to maintain.
0
60
120
240
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
December 2003
LEGEND
LONG TERM CONCEPT
Existing Buildings
New Buildings
GOALS ACCOMPLISHED:
Existing Pedestrian Bridges
Promote teaching and learning
New Covered Walkways
•
Provide space to meet future needs for changes to
curriculum.
Minimize the sense of isolation
•
Campus is grouped together to promote better connections between buildings.
Capitalize on the natural setting
PROJECTS:
•
•
•
Renovate 500 Building.
Construct addition Seven to expand 500
building.
Construct new instructional building Eight.
•
Commons area opens up to take advantage of views
to Lake Swano.
Promote universal design and barrier free attitude
•
Campus is grouped together to promote better access
between buildings.
Update building infrastructures
•
•
0
60
120
240
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
All projects incorporate new infrastructure systems for
data, electrical and HVAC.
Each building project will be converted to a HVAC
system with common controls that will create energy
efficiency and be easier to maintain.
December 2003
VI
2001 Master Plan Diagrams
LEGEND
Steep Topography
Flat Topography
EXISTING CAMPUS CONDITIONS
100 BUILDING
•
•
Bookstore, Student Services, Food Services, 22,640 gross square feet.
Constructed: 1957, Improvements: 1964 & 1993
200 BUILDING
Pedestrian Circulation
•
•
Vehicular Circulation
300 BUILDING
Condition 1 Structure
Condition 2 Structure
Condition 3 Structure
•
•
Administration, Music, 12,435 gross square feet.
Construction: 1957, Improvements 1964
Life Sciences, Art, Journalism, 14,765 gross square feet.
Construction: 1957, Improvements 1964
400 BUILDING
•
•
Social Sciences, 19,310 gross square feet.
Construction: 1957
450 BUILDING
•
•
Technology, 5170 gross square feet.
Construction: 1998
500 Building
Condition 1 Structure - Superior
•
•
•
•
New construction, major remodel, or recently refurbished
systems and finishes.
Maintained adequately with routine maintenance.
Little or no corrective maintenance required.
Little or no deferred maintenance.
Condition 2 Structure - Adequate
•
•
•
•
•
Finishes are generally worn but major systems and overall
facility is in reasonable shape.
Maintained adequately with routine maintenance.
Some minor work projects proposed to upgrade system components and finishes.
Beginning to see some corrective maintenance.
Relatively small amount of deferred maintenance.
Condition 3 Structure - Needs Improvement
•
•
•
•
Facility has potential for imminent systems failure or is facing
large repair costs.
Facility requires substantial maintenance effort.
Increased demands for corrective maintenance.
Substantial deferred maintenance.
•
•
Physical Education, 18,815 gross square feet.
Construction: 1957, Improvements 1964
600 Building
•
•
Nursing, General, Faculty Offices, 14,940 gross square feet.
Construction: 1964
700 Building
•
•
Vocational/Technical Maintenance, 23,305 gross square feet.
Construction: 1971
800 Building
•
•
Physical Sciences, 18,240 gross square feet
Construction: 1971
1500 Building
•
•
Library, 17,555 gross square feet
Construction: 1966, Improvements: 2002
1600 Building
•
•
Bishop Performing Arts Center, 12,825 gross square feet
Construction: 1974
1700 Building
•
•
Aquaculture, 3,855 gross square feet
Construction: 1984, Improvements 1997
1800 Building
•
•
Heavy Equipment Shop, 9,485 gross square feet
Construction: 1988
1900 Building
•
•
•
DayCare Center, 3,900 gross square feet
Construction: 1988
2300 Building
•
•
0
60
120
240
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
Vocational Storage, 960 Gross Square Feet
Construction: 1997
December 2001
LEGEND
Existing Buildings
New Buildings
Existing Pedestrian Bridges
New Pedestrian Bridges
PROJECTS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Renovate and expand Library
Construct Replacement Building One
Demolish 200, 400 and 600 Buildings
Construct pedestrian bridge from parking
lot to HUB and Library
Construct new vehicular entry way
Convert site of 600 Building to parking
SHORT TERM CONCEPT
GOALS ACCOMPLISHED:
Refine Vehicular and pedestrian circulation
• Re-defines and clarifies entry to campus.
• Moves pedestrian traffic away from traffic intersections.
• Creates new “front door for the campus.”
Promote teaching and learning.
• Begins demolition of old “high school” looking buildings.
• Creates up-to-date classroom and faculty office
spaces.
• Clusters humanities, arts, music, adult basic education, classrooms, and faculty offices.
• Expands and improves the functionality of the Bishop
Center for Performing Arts.
• Moving administration allows the future expansion of
the 800 Building.
Minimize the sense of isolation
• Re-opens the view of the campus to the community
• Moves the functions from the 600 Building, currently
at the outer edge of campus, to the middle of campus
Capitalize on the natural setting
• Begins to open views to Lake Swano from the commons area
• Expands the commons area
• Creates an outdoor patio between the new building
and the HUB.
Promote universal design and barrier free attitude
• Eliminates “cardiac lane” and creates better connection between the upper and lower parts of campus.
• Moves accessible parking to a better location that will
be more easily connected to other parts of the campus.
Update building infrastructures
• All projects incorporate new infrastructure systems for
data, electrical and HVAC.
• Each building project will be converted to a HVAC
system with common controls that will create energy
efficiency and be easier to maintain.
0
60
120
240
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
December 2001
LEGEND
MID TERM CONCEPT
Existing Buildings
New Buildings
GOALS ACCOMPLISHED:
Existing Pedestrian Bridges
Refine vehicular and pedestrian circulation
• Clarify the parking for ease of use and finding the
entry to campus.
New Pedestrian Bridges
Promote teaching and learning
• Complete demolition of “high school” like buildings
• Cluster sciences, technology, and math
Minimize the sense of isolation
• Campus is grouped together to promote better connections between buildings
PROJECTS:
•
•
•
•
Construct new Building Three
Demolish 300 Building
Construct new Building Four
Construct view point near Building
Three
Capitalize on the natural setting
• Commons area is opened up to take advantage of
view to Lake Swano
• View point is constructed to take advantage of
views.
Promote universal design and barrier free attitude
• Campus is grouped together to promote better access between buildings.
Update building infrastructures
• All projects incorporate new infrastructure systems
for data, electrical and HVAC.
• Each building project will be converted to a HVAC
system with common controls that will create energy efficiency and be easier to maintain.
0
60
120
240
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
December 2001
LEGEND
LONG TERM CONCEPT
Existing Buildings
New Buildings
GOALS ACCOMPLISHED:
Existing Pedestrian Bridges
Promote teaching and learning
New Pedestrian Bridges
•
•
Promote partnerships with the Aberdeen School District for vocational and recreational programs.
Space to meet future needs for changes to curriculum.
Minimize the sense of isolation
•
PROJECTS:
•
•
•
•
Renovate and expand 800 Building.
Renovate and expand 500 Building
Construct new instructional building
Construct new vocational building
with possible partners.
Campus is grouped together to promote better connections between buildings.
Capitalize on the natural setting
•
800 Building takes advantage of view to Lake Swano
with functions that promote social and community
interaction.
Promote universal design and barrier free attitude
•
Campus is grouped together to promote better access
between buildings.
Update building infrastructures
•
•
0
60
120
240
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
All projects incorporate new infrastructure systems
for data, electrical and HVAC.
Each building project will be converted to a HVAC
system with common controls that will create energy
efficiency and be easier to maintain.
December 2001
VII
2005 Reports
800 Building Assessment
Wetland Report
800 BUILDING ASSESSMENT
General Description
The 800 Building, first occupied in January
1972, is a 18,240 gross square feet building
distributed over three stories. This building is
located on the northeast corner of the upper
campus overlooking Lake Swano. This building
accommodates a sloped floor lecture hall,
physical science classrooms and laboratories,
computer labs and faculty offices.
Structural Comments
The 800 Building is primarily a cast-in-place
concrete structure supported by concrete spread
footings. The lower floors are grade supported and the upper floor has a oneway structural slab supported by concrete joists and girders. Structural walls
are primarily cast-in-place concrete with some 8” CMU infill. The roof
structure consists of a timber deck supported by glue-laminated beams.
It appears that the building structure is in good condition. No major cracking
is evident in the observable concrete supporting structure. Some minor
cracking of brick veneer is observed in places, offering evidence of minor
settlement.
Architectural Comments
Exterior wall finish materials include brick veneer and painted concrete. At
the upper level, Portland cement plaster is used extensively. Low-sloped roofs
are covered with TPO single-ply membrane and pitched roofs are covered with
concealed-fastener, metal roofing.
The above finish materials are in good shape with the exception of the cement
plaster. This material has not been holding up well in this wet climate. These
plaster surfaces have been repaired at least twice during the life of the
building and are in need of repair again. Covering the exposed cement plaster
surfaces with a more suitable material is desired. The TPO roof membrane
has reached its intended life and a new roof will be included in the next
capital request.
Access to the building is primarily from the north and south ends and
circulation between levels is awkward. Orientation of the building is directed
towards Lake Swano, resulting in the building “turning its back” on the
campus commons elevation. This orientation does not promote an inviting
façade on the commons elevation. It would be desirable to provide a new
entry/circulation system addition on the campus elevation of the building to
make circulation more understandable and present a more inviting presence
to the campus.
One of the very limiting features of the 800 Building is its modest size.
Page 1
Mechanical Comments
A complete replacement of the HVAC systems is in order. Typically, this
would include packaged, air-cooled rooftop air conditioning units, supply and
return ducts, fan-powered terminals, exhaust systems and DDC building
management control system.
Restroom facilities will require ADA upgrades and expansion, which would
require new plumbing services for these areas plus new plumbing fixtures.
Electrical Comments
Overall, the electrical service capacity to the building is good. Due to changes
in code and technology requirements for higher education facilities, the
building electrical and telecommunications systems will require upgrades to
keep pace with the electrical requirements of solid-state electronics in the
classroom. Wholesale upgrades may not be required because many aged
electrical panels have already been replaced.
The building life safety system, including emergency power distribution
system, building fire alarm system and egress lighting systems should be reevaluated and upgraded.
The building lighting systems and controls will need to be replaced with new
fixtures, lamps, ballasts and controls to meet requirements of the Washington
State Non-residential Energy Code.
In general, the incoming telecommunications appears to include both copper
riser cabling and fiber optic cabling and terminations. The building does not
appear to have any dedicated telecommunications spaces (MDF/IDF) to house
network switches and telecommunications cabling and terminations. Any
upgrades to the building should include the establishment of
telecommunications spaces that are compliant with TIA/EIA standards and
BICSI recommended practices.
Conclusions
Existing conditions of the 800 Building
do not warrant a wholesale conversion
to a different use (such as student
services, food services, bookstore, etc.).
Planners acknowledge the value of this
building functioning as surge space
during future major projects on
campus.
To this end, the 800 Building is
scheduled for modest renovation in the
master plan, primarily limited to HVAC
system replacement, conversion of labs
to general classrooms and finishes
upgrades. It is planned that these improvements will extend this buildings
service for another 13-15 years.
Page 2
800 BUILDING ASSESSMENT
•
•
•
0
24
0
0
0
24
18,240 Gross Square Feet
Original Construction: 1971
Electrical Improvements: 2005
4
8
16
24
24
24
0
0
4
8
16
24
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
0
24
0
4
8
16
24
December 2007
INTRODUCTION
Ecological Land Services, Inc. (ELS) has completed a wetland delineation for Harbor
Architects in a portion of property north of Grays Harbor College in Aberdeen, Washington.
The site is located in Section 16, Township 17 North, Range 9 West, Willamette Meridian,
(see Figure 1). The subject property is located on one parcel (TPN 317031614000) consisting
of 111.47 acres.
This report summarizes the findings of the wetland determination. The City of Aberdeen does
not currently regulate wetlands; however, wetlands are regulated as “Waters of the United
States” by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located within the City of Aberdeen city limits along State Route 105 (SR 105) and
is approximately one-half mile southwest of the Chehalis River mouth. The study area is
located north of the college (see Figure 2) with SR 105 and vacant land to the west, a large
shopping mall to the northwest, vacant land to the north, Alder Creek to the north and east,
and Grays Harbor College campus to the south. Athletic fields and a parking lot are located
in the center of the parcel.
The study area is on the floodplain of the Chehalis River, and the topography is relatively flat.
The study area is forested, with the exception of the athletic field and a forested wetland.
METHODS
This wetland delineation was performed by ELS following the Routine Determination Method
according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). The Routine Determination Method examines three
parameters – vegetation, hydrology, and soils – to determine if wetlands exist in a given area.
Hydrology is critical in determining what is wetland but is often difficult to assess because
hydrologic conditions can change periodically (hourly, daily, or seasonally). Consequently, it
is necessary to determine if hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils exist, which would
indicate that water is present for a duration that is long enough to support a wetland plant
community. By definition, wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands are regulated as “Waters of the United States” by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and locally by the City of Aberdeen.
ELS evaluated the entire property for wetlands on May 12, 2005. Figure 2 shows a site map
based on property and wetland boundaries that were surveyed by a professional land surveyor.
Vegetation, hydrology, and soil data were collected from test plots to verify the presence or
absence of wetlands (see attached wetland data forms).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Harbor Architects
Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Grays Harbor College – 2005 Facilities Master Plan
August 10, 2005
Page 1
VEGETATION
Dominant vegetation on the site was recorded in the field and is listed on the attached wetland
data forms. Vegetation in wetland and upland test plots are characteristic of those found in
wetland and upland locations. Indicator categories following the common names and
scientific names indicate the likelihood of the species to be found in wetlands. The indicator
categories listed below range from “most likely” to “least likely” to be found in wetlands:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
OBL (obligate wetland) - occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural
conditions in wetlands.
FACW (facultative wetland) - usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67%99%), but occasionally found in non-wetlands.
FAC (facultative) - equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated
probability 34%-66%).
FACU (facultative upland) - usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67%99%), but occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1%-33%).
UPL (obligate upland) - occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural
conditions in non-wetlands.
NI (no indicator) - insufficient data to assign to an indicator category.
A positive (+) or negative (-) sign, when used with indicators, attempts to more
specifically define the frequency of occurrence in wetlands. The positive sign indicates
“slightly more frequently found in wetlands” and the negative sign indicates “slightly less
frequently found in wetlands”.
SOILS
Soils in the study area are mapped as Ocosta silty clay loam (#104) by the U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Grays Harbor County Area, Pacific County, and
Wahkiakum County, Washington (1986). Figure 3 shows mapped soils at the site.
Ocosta soils are poorly-drained soils on floodplains protected from tidal overflow and have
been altered by ditching, tiling, and pumping. They are listed as hydric soils on the State of
Washington hydric soils list (Soil Conservation Service 1995). Mapped hydric soils do not
necessarily mean that the area is a wetland. Along with hydric soils, hydrology and wetland
vegetation must be present to classify an area as a wetland. Wetlands can also be found in
areas with soils not mapped as hydric.
Soils in test plots did not match the descriptions of Ocosta soils. The wetland soil moreclosely matched the definition of Seastrand muck, which is mapped as being located west of
the study area. Soils in the upland test plot were sand, which does not match the description
of the Ocosta silty clay loam.
HYDROLOGY
Water was at or near the surface of the wetland during the site visit. No streams, ponds, or
ditches were identified within the study area.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Harbor Architects
Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Grays Harbor College – 2005 Facilities Master Plan
August 10, 2005
Page 2
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
The National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI) for the subject area within and around the site
is shown in Figure 4. One wetland is mapped north of the study area as a broad-leaved,
deciduous, forested, Palustrine wetland with an intermittently-flooded or temporary water
regime (PFO1W). One wetland is mapped west of the study area and is mapped as a scrubshrub Palustrine wetland with saturated/semipermanent/seasonal water regime (PSS1Y).
The wetland delineated within the project area is not shown on the NWI map, which is
typically used to gather general wetland information about a regional area and is somewhat
limited in accuracy for smaller sites due to the large scale used for the maps.
CONCLUSIONS
ELS located and flagged the boundaries of the onsite wetland, and the boundary was surveyed
by a professional land surveyor. The wetland is rated as a Category I, depressional wetland
according to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, (Hruby
2004) (see attached forms). Wetlands are rated from a Category I (highest quality) to a
Category IV (lowest quality) using the State of Washington method, which has been adopted
by the City of Aberdeen. No wetland buffers are required; however, ELS recommends a 25foot buffer to protect wetland functions.
We base the above-listed determinations and conclusions on standard scientific methodology
and best professional judgment. In our opinion, the conclusions should agree with local,
state, and federal regulatory agencies; however, this should be considered a Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination and should be used at your own risk until it has been reviewed
and approved in writing by the appropriate regulatory agencies.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Harbor Architects
Ecological Land Services, Inc.
Grays Harbor College – 2005 Facilities Master Plan
August 10, 2005
Page 3
VIII
2007 Facilities Condition Survey
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following individuals and firms are acknowledged for their participation in and
contribution to the Grays Harbor College Facility Condition Survey.
State of Washington
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
1300 Quince St. SE, Olympia, WA 98504 (360) 704-4382
Tom Henderson, Director, Capital Budget
Department of General Administration
Division of Engineering and Architectural Services
206 General Administration Building, Olympia, WA 98504
Paul Szumlanski, P.E., Project Manager (360) 902-7271
Grays Harbor College
1620 Edward P. Smith Drive, Aberdeen, WA 98520
(360) 538-4034
Keith Foster, Vice President for Administrative Services
Craig Miller, Director of Maintenance and Building Construction
Pack & Associates, Inc.
2715 – 185th Ave. NE, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 883-9927
Andre J. Pack, Project Manager, Surveying Maintenance Specialist
David M. Coles, P.E., Surveying Mechanical/Electrical Engineer
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
INTRODUCTION
In early 2007 the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) directed that
a facility condition survey be performed on all state-owned community and technical college
facilities statewide, as well as at the Seattle Vocational Institute and the Center for
Information Services. The intent of the survey is to provide a current determination of the
physical condition of the state owned community and technical college facilities and to
identify capital repair project candidates for funding consideration in the 2009-2011 biannual state budget cycle.
This is the tenth biannual survey that continues a process begun by the SBCTC in 1989 as a
method of identifying and budgeting capital repair needs by applying a uniform process to all
colleges system-wide. The capital repair candidate identification process uses a condition
survey protocol and deficiency prioritization methodology applied in a consistent manner
across all of the two-year colleges. The process was established with a detailed baseline
condition survey conducted at each college, followed by survey updates conducted every
two years to update data and identify new emerging deficiencies.
In 1995 a joint venture of two of the three firms selected by the SBCTC in 1989 to perform
the first baseline survey of the community colleges, as well as the 1991 and 1993 updates,
was selected by the SBCTC to conduct the second baseline condition survey of all of the
colleges. The components of this joint venture, Tonkin/Hoyne/Lokan and Pack &
Associates, Inc., also conducted survey updates in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005. In
early 2007 the SBCTC selected Pack & Associates, Inc. as sole consultant to conduct this
year‘s update of the 2005 survey and identify emerging deficiencies at all of the colleges.
For each college the survey focus includes:
 Reviewing deficiencies documented in the 2005 survey that have either not been
funded or only partially funded to evaluate the current condition of those
deficiencies.
 Updating the relative severity/priority of those deficiencies to result in a deficiency
score to be used as a guide for repair request timing.
 Modifying the recommended corrective action for those deficiencies if necessary
and estimating the current repair costs to guide a college in developing its capital
repair project requests.
 Reviewing, verifying, prioritizing, and estimating corrective costs for “emerging”
deficiencies identified by a college as potential capital repairs.
 Updating the building and site condition ratings.
This survey is intended to assist the SBCTC in establishing the relative severity of each
capital repair deficiency to allow system-wide prioritizing of each college repair request. The
SBCTC will also be able to estimate in advance the probable level of magnitude of the cost
1
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
of the projects likely to be requested by each college for inclusion into its 2009-2011 capital
repair requests.
The scope of the 2007 condition survey, as developed by the SBCTC, includes site and
utility systems as well as all building components. It does not include dormitories, parking
lots, asbestos hazard identification, ADA compliance, new construction, or recently
completed construction currently under warranty.
2
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the week of August 6, 2007 a facility condition survey was conducted at the Grays
Harbor College campus in Aberdeen, Washington. The focus of the survey, at the direction
of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, was to identify and document
deficiencies that would qualify as capital repair projects for the 2009-2011 biennium, as well
as deficiencies that would be backlogged for funding after 2011.
The survey had a dual focus. First, deficiencies identified during the 2005 survey that had
not been funded for repairs, or only partially funded, were reviewed to determine changes in
these deficiencies since the 2005 survey. Changes were recorded and cost estimates for
correcting the deficiencies updated. Each deficiency was also re-prioritized using the
prioritizing system that was developed in 1995 and modified in 1999. Second, a review and
documentation of “emerging” deficiencies identified by the college was conducted.
“Emerging” deficiencies that qualified as capital repairs were also prioritized and cost
estimates for corrective action developed. Campus areas not owned or managed by the
State, dormitories, parking lots, potential asbestos problems covered by the SBCTC
hazardous material/asbestos abatement pool, deficiencies covered under existing
warranties, and new construction project deficiencies were not addressed as part of this
effort.
College Overview
Grays Harbor College, which was founded in 1930, serves communities throughout Grays
Harbor and Pacific counties in the central and south coastal areas of Washington. Located
in Aberdeen, the college has been in operation at the current site since 1957. The college
was part of the local school district until 1967, when it became part of the state higher
education system. The college also owns four off-campus facilities, one located in
downtown Aberdeen, one located in Elma, east of Aberdeen, one located in Raymond,
south of Aberdeen, and one located in Ilwaco, south of Aberdeen. In addition class sites are
also located in South Bend, Willapa Valley, Ocosta, North Beach, Taholah, and Naselle high
schools.
The main campus is located on approximately 120 acres of land within the city limits of
Aberdeen and houses 16 facilities (see campus map on following page), 2 of which are
portables. Of the16 facilities, 10 are considered academic facilities, 5 are administrative and
student service facilities, and 1 is a storage facility. These facilities range in size from 960
GSF to 71,755 GSF, and were constructed between 1957 and 2006. Half of the facilities at
this campus were constructed between the late 50s and mid 60s and are now between 41
and 50 years old. The newest instructional facility was constructed in 2006.
One of the off-campus buildings, the Whiteside Building, is located in downtown Aberdeen,
some three miles from the main campus. The building is a 5,396 GSF facility that was
constructed in 1901, used as a funeral home, and extensively renovated by the college after
it was acquired in 1997. The second off-site facility, the Simpson Education Center, is a
1,792 GSF portable located in Elma, approximately twenty-two miles east of Aberdeen. The
facility was constructed in 1998. The third off-site facility, the Riverview Education Center, is
a renovated 12,660 GSF former elementary school located in Raymond, some twenty-five
3
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
miles south of Aberdeen. The facility was constructed in 1925 and totally renovated in 2000.
It replaced the GHC on the Willapa-South Bend Center, which opened in 1997. The fourth
off-site facility, the Columbia Education Center, is a 6,342 GSF building constructed in 2006,
and is located in the town of Ilwaco, approximately 66 miles south of Aberdeen.
Deficiency Survey Update Summary
Both of the deficiencies identified in the 2005 condition survey, and submitted s part of the
2007-2009 Capital Budget Request, have been funded. These deficiencies include:
1) Deficiency 01F – Replacement of HVAC and dust collection system in Voktek (700).
MACC estimate of $546,600.
2) Deficiency 01R – Replacement of the single-ply roof membrane in Voktek (700).
MACC estimate of $270,000.
The 2007 condition survey identified a total of 9 capital repair deficiencies with an estimated
July 2008 MACC repair cost of $1,214,700 for the college. All of these deficiencies are new
deficiencies identified in 2007. The table on the following page, titled “College Deficiency
Summary by Building,” summarizes by facility the number of deficiencies, average severity
score and estimated repair cost.
The capital repair deficiencies identified through the facility condition survey are categorized
by the following capital repair funding categories:
 Four Facility deficiencies with an estimated repair cost of $806,500. These
deficiencies include deteriorating HVAC equipment, failing drain tile, and
deteriorating plaster facing and brick.
 One Roof deficiency with an estimated repair cost of $189,000 to replace a
single-ply membrane.
 Four Site deficiencies with an estimated repair cost of $219,200. These
deficiencies include failing locksets throughout campus, deteriorating asphalt
paving, and poor drainage.
The table on the page following the “College Deficiency Summary by Building” table, titled
“College Deficiency Summary by Funding Category,” summarizes by funding category the
number of deficiencies, average severity score and estimated repair cost.
Capital Repair Requirement Overview
The capital repair requirements identified during this survey are focused on roof, HVAC
system, exterior closure, drainage, and paving repairs.
1) The single-ply membrane on Physical Education (500) is deteriorating, exhibiting
surface chalkiness and beginning “scrim” exposure. This membrane and the
underlying insulation and flashings should be replaced.
2) The existing sectional concrete drain tile connected to the building roof downspouts
in the Hillier Union Building (100) is plugged and broken, inhibiting proper downspout
flow. The drain tile should be replaced.
4
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
3) The exterior plaster facing on a number of areas on Physical Science (800) is
constantly cracking and allowing the water to infiltrate the building. The facing
applied over the cast concrete areas should be removed. There are also a number
of cracked and broken bricks that need to be replaced.
4) The HVAC system and associated fiberboard ductwork throughout Physical Science
(800) are deteriorating. The rooftop components are badly rusted and there is
inadequate ventilation. The HVAC equipment, and associated ductwork should be
replaced and a new DDC system installed.
5) The security locksets on a number of doors throughout campus are failing and are
no longer supported by the manufacturer. New locksets will require the replacement
of the doors as the cut-outs would not be compatible with any other systems.
6) The asphalt paving on four portions of the campus roadway is deteriorating, with
cracking and alligatoring ranging from moderate to severe. Repair and replacement
are necessary.
7) A vehicle storage lot also has severe deterioration and needs to be regarded and
new crushed rock applied.
In general the capital repair deficiencies that were identified stem from equipment that is
deteriorated to the point that it is no longer cost-effective to repair or maintain due to age
and/or wear, weather impacts, obsolescence, and poor design.
The table on the following page titled “College Deficiency Summary by Cause” summarizes
by probable deficiency cause the number of deficiencies, average severity score and
estimated repair cost.
Major Infrastructure Issues
The current Facilities Master Plan addresses primarily the existing condition of the main
campus storm water management process, including discharge to Lake Swano, discharge to
existing conveyance systems, and dispersion or in-ground infiltration/storage. In addition,
the plan addresses shortcomings in the campus telecommunications distribution system.
The college submitted a Minor Project request of $396,791 in the 2007-09 Capital Budget
Request to fund the second of six phases of a telecommunications infrastructure upgrade.
The 2005 plan document also identifies the need for extending the natural gas distribution
system throughout the remainder of the main campus and assessing the water distribution
system to identify necessary improvements for fire flow.
No major infrastructure issues requiring capital repairs have been identified for 2007 by the
college.
Consistency of Repair Requests with Facility Master Planning
Since capital repair funding is derived largely from long-term State bond indebtedness, the
investment of capital repair dollars in a facility should result in a long-term benefit, a
minimum of thirteen years according to SBCTC policy. This means that facilities for which
capital repair dollars are being requested should have a reasonable remaining life
5
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
expectancy to recover the repair dollar investment. It also means that capital repair requests
for facilities that a college has identified as high priority renovation candidates should be
carefully scrutinized to make sure that the repairs will have provided a long term benefit
before any renovation is considered.
For these reasons one of the criteria used for the capital repair request validation process is
to review the college’s master plan relative to the facilities for which capital repair dollars are
being requested. The purpose of the review is to determine what the medium and long term
planning and programming objectives of the college are with respect to the facilities for
which capital repair dollars are being considered. The objective is to determine what the
College considers the life expectancy of these facilities to be, and what major planned
program/use changes, or proposed major renovations, if any, are being considered. This
will assist in determining whether or not the proposed capital repair projects have economic
merit.
Three of the nine deficiencies discussed above are in one facility that, according to the
college master plan, will be utilized for the long term. One deficiency is in a facility that is a
high priority candidate for replacement. One deficiency is in a facility that is a high priority
candidate for renovation. Four deficiencies are site deficiencies.
The Physical Science (800) building is a 36 year old building that is rated in below average
condition, largely because of deficiencies in several building systems that require capital
repairs, and functional inadequacies for instructional use. Upon completion of a new
science facility that is currently in pre-design, this facility will no longer be required for
science programs, and could be re-configured for administrative or student support uses, for
which it might be better suited functionally. The college intends to retain this building for
medium to long-term use.
The proposed capital repairs for the building discussed above do not appear to be in any
conflict with any planning/utilization initiatives identified for this building in the master plan.
The Hillier Union Building (100) may be the priority replacement candidate for the college for
2009-11. This building was constructed in 1957 as part of the original campus construction
and is currently rated as average to below average. However, the building has had several
remodels and may not be competitive as a replacement candidate. If it is not selected, the
drain tile deficiency identified needs to be corrected.
The Physical Education (500) building, which is actually a gym/fitness center with some
offices for PE faculty, may be the priority renovation candidate for the college for 2009-11. If
this facility receives renovation dollars, the roof membrane replacement should be
included as part of the renovation process and not funded as a capital repair.
Special Concerns
No special concerns that do not qualify for capital repairs have been identified at the college.
Building Condition Rating Overview
The condition of the individual facilities at Grays Harbor College ranges from poor to very
good, and varies significantly, as is evidenced by the “Building Condition Rating Summary”
form presented on the following page. The rating scores presented in this summary were
generated by the condition analysis conducted as part of the 2007 condition survey.
6
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
Larger additions to buildings are now rated separately from the original building, a process
that was initiated in 2005. Deficiencies are now also treated separately for these additions,
as long as equipment or component distinctions can be readily identified.
As can be seen, the rating scores for college facilities range from a low of 150 for the
renovated Library (1500) to a high of 604 for Life Science (300), with a lower score indicating
a better overall condition rating (see page 1 of the Facility Condition/ Maintenance Overview
section for a breakdown of the rating scores). In general, the better scores were received by
the newer facilities, major facility additions, and facilities that have undergone major
renovation or remodels in recent years.
The method of calculating the average building condition rating score for a college was also
changed in 2005. In previous years, the average score was calculated as a simple
arithmetic average by totaling all individual building scores and dividing by the number of
facilities that were rated. However, in analyzing and comparing building scores, it was
discovered that, in many instances, the arithmetic average was not truly reflective of the
“average” condition of a college. Smaller buildings, such as portables that were in poor
condition, could increase (worsen) the average score for a college, even if most other larger
facilities were in good condition. To remedy this situation, it was determined that calculating
a weighted average score instead of an arithmetic average would be more reflective of the
average building condition at a college. This weighted average score is calculated by
summing the GSF of all buildings rated and dividing that total by the total of all individual
building scores.
The weighted average score for all facilities is 330 for 2007, indicating that overall, college
facilities are average to below-average. However, this score is still somewhat skewed by the
fact that three facilities (200, 400, and 600) have been replaced by the new Manspeaker
Instructional (020) building, but these facilities will not be demolished for at least another
year, possibly more. The two portables used as the child care center, which also have high
scores, will be replaced when matching funding for a new facility is secured. Nine of the
nineteen college facilities rated, or 47%, are rated as either Superior or Adequate. In 2005
the weighted average score for all facilities was 386, with seven facilities or 39%, rated as
either Superior or Adequate. The improvement in overall condition is due to completed
capital repairs in some facilities and the construction of a new 71,755 GSF facility that is
three time larger than the next smallest facility and correspondingly impacts the weighted
score.
The challenge for the college going forward will be to effectively focus its emphasis in the
coming years on enhancing the maintenance of the main campus facilities so as to optimize
the life cycle of new facilities, major renovations and major remodels, and insure its
remaining older facilities remain attractive to the students and community. Grays Harbor
College is in the mature phase of its existence in terms of overall facility age. The college
will have to adopt a multi-year approach to programming recurring maintenance and repairs
and providing adequate funding for PM to critical systems, especially in newer facilities.
FACILITY REPLACEMENT AND RENOVATION CONSIDERATIONS
7
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
The 16 academic and support facilities at the main campus of Grays Harbor College have
been constructed in three major phases. Initial construction at the main campus began in
1957, when five facilities were constructed—the Hillier Union Building (100), Administration
(200), Life Science (300), Social Science (400), and Physical Education (500). Two
facilities, the Six (600) building and the Library (1500) were constructed during the 1960s.
Three additional facilities, Physical Science (800), Votkek (700) and Bishop Center (1600)
were constructed in the early 1970s. Only three new instructional buildings have been built
at Grays Harbor since the 1970s. Aquaculture was constructed in 1984, the Heavy
Equipment Shop (1800) was constructed in 1988 and the Manspeaker Instructional building
was constructed in 2006.
The four facilities at the four satellite sites range in age between 88 years and 1 year. The
Whiteside building was constructed in 1919 and substantially renovated in 1997. The
Riverview Education Center was constructed in 1925 and completely renovated in 2001.
The Simpson Education Center, a portable, was constructed in 1998. The Columbia
Education Center was constructed in 2006.
Major additions to four of the five buildings built in 1957 were constructed in 1964.
Administration, the Hillier Union Building, and the Bishop Center have also had fairly recent
addition and renovation/remodel projects that have improved their utility and safety. In 2004
the College completed a major renovation of the Library, which included expansion to gain
additional space to meet current and future needs.
A new vocational program building to house the colleges automotive and welding programs,
which will be moved from the Voktek (700) building, is currently under construction on the
lower campus adjacent to the Heavy Equipment Shop (1800). This new facility will provide
up-to-date instructional amenities, and will have adequate space for program expansion
over the next decade
Facility Replacement Priorities
A master plan document for Grays Harbor College was completed in December of 2001 and
updated in 2003. In 2005 a Facilities Master Plan was developed which is being revised as
of this writing. The 2005 plan document identified new construction, renovation and
expansion initiatives over a ten year period. Discussions with college staff have indicated
that, at the time of the condition survey, the college was considering making the Hillier Union
Building (100) its priority replacement candidate for 2009-11, which is in keeping with the
2005 document.
Hillier Union Building (100)
The Hillier Union Building (100) is a single story facility of approximately 22,643 GSF that
was constructed in 1957. This facility currently houses the college cafeteria and dining hall,
as well as the student activities center and a variety of student support services, including
registration and counseling. This facility is currently rated as average to below-average in
terms of overall condition, largely because of the age of some of the major building systems,
with a current condition rating of 398.
The last significant remodel of this building occurred in 1994. However, over the years there
have been several smaller remodels. This has resulted in a mix of building components of
various ages. For example, the HVAC system is a mix of older and newer equipment, and
the roof membrane was replaced in 2002. Of all the spaces in the building, the one that is in
2
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
the worst relative condition is the kitchen, which is very small and has a lot of outdated
equipment. The electrical distribution system is also at capacity and the panels are
obsolete. However, because of the size and design of this area, it is not considered costeffective to renovate. Other than the kitchen and the immediately adjacent area, the
appearance of the interior of the building is reasonably good for its age and use. The
exterior, however, is very dated.
Once the 200, 400 and 600 buildings are demolished as a result of the construction of the
Manspeaker Instructional building, and the 300 building is replaced by the new science
building, Hillier will be the last original college building other than the Physical Education
(500) building. However, Hillier is not an academic facility and may, therefore, not strictly
qualify as a replacement candidate. Given that part of the building is utilized for student
activities, COP funding may be the more realistic alternative for replacement.
Major Renovation Priorities
As of this writing, the college is considering making the Physical Education (500) building its
priority renovation candidate for the 2009-11 biennium, which is in keeping with the 2005
Facilities Master Plan. This building is a single story facility of approximately 18,814 GSF
also constructed in 1957. The facility currently houses a gymnasium, men’s and women’s
locker and shower rooms, two fitness spaces, and offices for athletic program personnel.
This facility has a current condition rating of 396.
The current facility is inadequate, both in terms of size and amenities, to support college
athletic as well as PE programs. Despite the fact that the college requires PE credits for
graduation, the Physical Education facility has no PE classrooms, forcing the PE program to
compete for available space in other instructional buildings or to use the actual gym playing
floor area. The gym area itself is fairly small and is considered inadequate for a college
facility, especially for any competitive sports. The shower and locker room facilities are very
dated, have not had significant amenity improvements in many years, and are considered
too small to effectively support student demand. This is especially true of the women’s
facilities.
Both the electrical system and the HVAC system in this facility have been upgraded and/or
replaced since 2000. The HVAC equipment was largely replaced in 2000 and the electrical
service upgraded in 2004. A 2001 remodel focused on the fitness center areas and some of
the faculty offices. Other than these areas the building has a mix of older and newer
amenities, and is basically a “tired” building that has had some modernization.
The college is proposing a renovation/addition project for this facility that would include an
addition to the building and a comprehensive renovation of the interior spaces, especially
the shower and locker rooms, gym and office areas. The focus would be to provide
classroom space for PE programs, additional office space, new shower/locker rooms and a
competition gym. According to its existing Facilities Master Plan (2005) this would be
funded through a Matching Project, COP with student fees, and private funds.
Photos illustrating some of the general condition issues with the Physical Education
(500) building are provided on the following pages.
3
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
FACILITY CONDITION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW
As part of the condition survey the facility condition rating analysis conducted for each facility
in 2005 was updated. This analysis updated the rating of some 23 separate construction
and operations/adequacy characteristics for each facility. A score was assigned to each
characteristic and all scores were totaled as an overall condition score for the facility. The
score for a facility can range between 146 points and 730 points. The higher the score
received by a facility the poorer its overall condition. The entire score range was subdivided
into five sets of score ranges, and a condition rating designation was assigned to each
range. The ranges and associated condition ratings are as follows:





146 – 175 = Superior;
176 = 275 = Adequate;
276 – 350 = Needs Improvement/Additional Maintenance;
351 – 475 = Needs Improvement/Renovation (If facility merits keeping);
476 – 730 = Replace or Renovate.
A detailed discussion of the site and facility condition analysis process, including the
scoring process, is provided in Appendix B.
Facility Condition Overview
The 2007 weighted average condition score for the facilities at Grays Harbor College,
including the Whiteside, Simpson Center and Raymond sites, is 330. This score indicates
that, in the opinion of the survey consultant, facilities at the college are in average condition,
but need improvement, primarily through additional maintenance. Individual facility scores
ranged from a low of 150 for the newly renovated Library (1500) to a high of 604 for Life
Science (300). It should be noted, however, that three of the high scoring facilities
(Administration, Social Science and Six) are scheduled for demolition in the next two years,
as they have been replaced by the Manspeaker Instructional building which was completed
in 2006. In addition the Life Science (300) building, also a high scoring facility, will be
replaced once a new science replacement facility is constructed in four years. The two child
care portables will also be replaced once matching funds are secured. This will remove six
of the highest scoring buildings from the inventory.
Not counting the six buildings discussed above, for which the scores have remained the
same as in 2005, the score of one building increased because of deficiencies that will
require capital repairs. The score of a second building increased because of a re-rating of
two elements in a building that is a candidate for replacement. However, the increase in the
scores did not change the overall rating of the buildings (e.g. from Adequate to Needs
Improvement), and does NOT indicate a general worsening of building condition. The
scores of three buildings decreased (improved) by an average of 23 points. This was due to
capital repairs that had been funded the previous biennium and had been completed.
Aside from the four permanent facilities scheduled for eventual demolition, the overall facility
condition at Grays Harbor College, as measured by the building condition analysis
conducted as part of the condition survey update, is considered average to above-average.
1
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
Nine facilities and one major addition to a facility have been rated as either Adequate or
Superior. Superior ratings were received by the renovated Library (1500), the new
Manspeaker Instructional (020) building, and the Riverview Education Center in Raymond,
which was renovated in 2001. The average weighted score for the college has decreased
(improved) 55 points compared to 2005.
A similar analysis was conducted for the individual sites by evaluating eight site
characteristics. These ratings also translated into a site condition score that ranges between
36 and 175. As with the facility condition analysis, the lower the score the better the overall
condition.
The total site condition score for the main campus at Grays Harbor is 109. For the
Whiteside site the total score is 97. For the Simpson Center site the total score is 43. For
the Raymond site the total score is 87. The Ilwaco site, new in 2006, was not evaluated this
year.
The main campus has negative site characteristics that include a hilly site with facilities
located on two separate levels of the site; inadequate parking and poor circulation on-site;
and limited security;. The site score has remained the same as in 2005.
Negative characteristics for the Whiteside site include a lack of expansion capability on the
site; traffic flow on two adjacent city streets; and tight site parking. The site score has
remained the same as in 2005.
No negative characteristics have been identified at the Simpson Center site, and the score
has remained the same as in 2005. Negative characteristics for the Raymod site include
below average site traffic flow and limited room for parking expansion. The score has also
remained the same as in 2005.
Over the last 3 biennia, the general overall condition of the facilities on campus has
improved slowly. Much of this improvement has been the result of an increase in funding for
capital repairs to roofs, HVAC systems and some exterior closure elements. A much greater
level of physical and aesthetic improvement will result when the replacement science facility
is completed and four of the six original main campus buildings, as well as the child care
portables, are demolished over the next two to five years.
However, the college must also insure that adequate maintenance and operating
funds are made available so that the significant investment of taxpayer dollars into
these facilities and the entire campus is protected.
Preventive Maintenance Overview
In response to a maintenance management questionnaire that was sent to the college in
advance of the condition survey, the college maintenance organization has indicated that an
HVAC equipment inventory exists. However, no data as to the number of pieces of
equipment currently in the inventory was supplied. Likewise, no data was supplied on the
number of labor hours of scheduled HVAC PM work completed annually over the past two
calendar years, or of the percent of scheduled HVAC PM completed. The maintenance
organization has indicated that it does not have a program to keep track of this data.
It is also unclear what priority is placed on preventive maintenance, either for HVAC
equipment or for roofs. Roof maintenance college-wide appears to have improved
2
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
somewhat. However, roof maintenance is impeded by the lack of slope and drainage on
many roofs, which results in excessive standing water for long periods.
Asphalt and concrete walkway and road maintenance also need to be better addressed on
the main campus to prevent minor cracks from deteriorating into larger cracks, extensive
alligatoring, and wear course failure, all of which are more expensive to address than
periodic minor crack cleaning and sealing.
Facility Maintenance Management Overview
The effectiveness of a facility maintenance program is generally reflected in the overall
condition of an organization’s facilities. An effective maintenance program depends on
several factors. These include the size and capability of the maintenance staff, the financial
resources that are provided for maintenance and the maintenance philosophy of
management. Each of these elements has been evaluated for the college to provide an
overall assessment of the current maintenance program.
As part of the 2007 condition survey update a biannual maintenance management
questionnaire was sent to the head of the maintenance organization at each college. This
questionnaire solicited input as to current maintenance staffing and funding, and asked each
college to provide basic information on the status of their PM programs, work management
protocols and use of computerized maintenance management systems. It also requested
input on the most common maintenance problems at the college. This information was used
as the basis for the discussion that follows.
Maintenance Staffing and Operations
The physical plant at Grays Harbor College encompasses approximately 299,932 GSF
among the main campus and the four satellite sites, not including leased facilities. This
physical plant is maintained by a staff of nine, including the Director of Maintenance and
Building Construction, who has estimated that he spends 50% of his time performing actual
maintenance. Four of the staff is assigned full-time to maintenance duties, two staff is
assigned 45% time, one is assigned 20% time, and one 30% time. This staff has the
following composition:
 1 Director of Maintenance and Building Construction, 50% time;
 2 Maintenance Mechanic IIs, full-time;
 1 Maintenance Mechanic I, full-time;
 2 Maintenance Mechanics IIs, 45% time;
 1 Administrative Assistant, 20% time;
 1 Warehouse Worker 2, 30% time.
In order to analyze the non-PM maintenance workload at the college information on the
approximate number of maintenance and repair work orders, not counting PM, was
requested. Grays Harbor uses a single-category work order system to track routine
maintenance/repair work manually. According to data submitted by the college, an average
of 540 work orders was generated annually in 2005 and 2006. According to the
questionnaire response, labor hours and material costs are not currently tracked.
As part of the workload evaluation process, the maintenance organization was also asked to
identify the five most common maintenance problems encountered in terms of maintenance
3
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
hours expended. The college response indicated that the five most common problems
include:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Door hardware failures;
Roof leaks;
HVAC comfort calls;
Plumbing leaks;
HVAC equipment trouble calls.
Information on what percent of total non-PM work orders for each of the last two calendar
years was backlogged (uncompleted) at the end of each year was also requested, along
with the major cause of the backlogged work. In response, the college maintenance
organization indicated that an average of 432 non-PM work orders was completed annually
in 2005 and 2006. Calculating completed work orders against work requests results in an
average annual completion rate of 80% or a backlog of non-PM work orders of 20% at the
end of 2005 and 2006.
It should be noted that some backlog for maintenance/repair work is not only justified, but is
also necessary. Most maintenance management textbooks agree that work backlog is
viewed as a key justification for having a workforce and justifying personnel utilization, as
well as optimum productivity of each worker. The backlog rate identified at Grays Harbor
College is at the upper end of accepted industry benchmarks.
Given that labor hours and costs for work orders and for PM r are apparently not tracked, it
is impossible to determine how maintenance staff time is allocated between facility
maintenance and non-maintenance support functions.
The maintenance organization at the college was also asked what types of maintenance and
repair the college typically contracts out rather than performs with in-house personnel. In
response, the college indicated the types of work typically performed by contract include:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Back-flow testing;
Window repair;
HVAC unit replacement;
Asphalt roadwork;
Pneumatic controls;
HVAC controls;
Fire alarms;
Chemical pot treatment;
Storefront and door replacement.
CMMS Utilization
The college currently has no automated maintenance management system, having opted
not to use the FM-1 system. The college has indicated that it would only consider some type
of CMMS when resources are available to properly support such a system. The current staff
appears to be unwilling to change their work focus from maintenance to system tracking.
However, the maintenance staff does realize that new buildings coming on line will
accelerate the need to move to a formal PM program and implement a CMMS.
The college needs to be aware that, if it elects not to use the MegaMations CMMS system
there are a several good and relatively easy to use small CMMS packages on the market
that would fit the needs of the size of campus at Grays Harbor. Any CMMS, however, will
4
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
require an up front commitment of time and resources to implement, including populating the
database. It will also require resources to maintain, even though this need not involve a
significant expenditure of time if done on a daily basis.
The downside of implementing and maintaining a CMMS is minimal when compared to the
benefits such a system can offer. A CMMS would allow the college to gain a much better
handle on how labor hours and material costs are expended, improve the scheduling and
tracking of PMs, improve work order management, perform trend analysis on building
system component or equipment reliability, and more effectively monitor facility and
equipment life cycle costs. The biggest gain that would result from a CMMS, however,
would be better empirical data to justify capital repair and renovation requirements as well as
maintenance staffing requirements and maintenance funding.
Maintenance Staffing Comparative Data
As part of every condition survey since 1999 the survey consultant has been comparing
community and technical college maintenance staffing data provided by all of the colleges
with data developed by professional organizations in an attempt to establish meaningful
comparisons for analyzing staffing adequacy. Professional organizations, such as the
International Facility Management Association (IFMA), routinely collect data on various
aspects of facility management and maintenance. One area of focus of these data
collection efforts is maintenance staffing. IFMA publishes periodic comparative data they
term “Benchmarks,” which is gathered through in-depth surveys of a wide variety of
maintenance organizations. IFMA completed the last major facility operations and
maintenance survey in 2006. The data is reported in a publication titled “Operations and
Maintenance Benchmarks 2005 – Research Report #26”.
IFMA provides maintenance FTE staffing data from its survey. In addition, IFMA breaks this
data down across several ranges of physical plant sizes. For comparison with the
community colleges, the size range of 250,000 to 500,000 GSF was selected from the IFMA
data as representative of the average size of a state campus. The average total
maintenance staffing reported by IFMA in 2006 for this size of plant is 9.0. This compares to
5.7 full-time equivalent maintenance staff currently at Grays Harbor (not counting the
Assistant to the Director) -- 37% less than the IFMA average.
Since the IFMA survey provides the FTE staffing data by physical plant size range, dividing
the upper end of the selected range (500,000 GSF) by the staffing FTE provides an
approximation of the number of GSF maintained per staff person. In this case, that figure is
1:55,556 GSF.
The data supplied by Grays Harbor College indicates that each of the 5.7 full-time equivalent
maintenance staff at the college is responsible for approximately 52,620 GSF of space. This
is roughly 5% less space responsibility than the 55,556 SF comparative average of the
IFMA survey.
The difference in space maintained per staff at Grays Harbor College and the IFMA
comparative average is negligible, while the number of staff for the size of plant maintained
must be considered adequate. However, the college is gaining new facilities that are more
complex than its existing facilities. These may require additional maintenance staffing in the
future to insure new capital investment is adequately supported,
5
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
In its 2006 report, IFMA has provided a new set of comparative data for maintenance
staffing. Data is now provided for average staffing by specific types of maintenance
personnel (e.g. electricians, painters, etc.), using the same ranges of physical plant size as
for total staffing. This data is presented below.
2005 IFMA
Supervisor (incl. Foremen)
Administrative Support
Electricians
Mechanical (incl. Plumbers)
Controls Techs.
Painters
Carpenters
HVAC Mechanics
Locksmiths
Maintenance Workers
Specialists (not defined)
1.52
2.87
2.21
1.93
0.93
1.24
1.26
2.05
0.79
3.13
1.14
It is felt that the data above can be of use to the colleges for evaluating their existing staffing
in terms of specific trades/capabilities and staffing numbers. However, the data above is not
meant to provide true benchmarks for staffing.
Maintenance Funding Comparisons
A second important question for the community and technical colleges is whether funding for
preventive and routine maintenance and repair of facilities, typically allocated to a college as
M&O funding, is adequate. Though the issue of what constitutes an adequate level of
routine maintenance funding is difficult to resolve, facility maintenance organizations in both
the public and private sectors have increasingly begun to rely on comparative studies as a
way to evaluate the adequacy of their facility operating funds.
As part of its efforts to provide comparative data on operations and maintenance, IFMA also
provides maintenance cost data against which organizations can compare their facility
maintenance costs and evaluate the adequacy of their funding. These costs are provided
per square foot of space, and are derived through detailed member surveys. The most
recent data from IFMA is presented in the same publication referenced above. Maintenance
cost categories covered by IFMA include total maintenance, external building maintenance,
interior systems maintenance, roads and grounds maintenance, utility/central systems
maintenance, and process treatment/environmental systems. IFMA does not provide data
on capital renewal.
The Mean dollars per square foot for maintenance costs provided in the IFMA publication for
2005 for each of these categories are presented below. For additional comparison, janitorial
and utility costs have also been included. In the IFMA report this cost data is presented both
as a national Mean and for individual categories of physical plant, including educational
institutions. Since data is provided for educational institutions as a physical plant category, it
is also included below.
6
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
2005 IFMA
National
2005 IFMA
Education
Total Maintenance
$2.00
$1.57
External Building Maintenance
Interior System Maintenance
Utility/Central System Maintenance
Roads and Grounds Maintenance
Process Treatment/Environmental Systems
Janitorial
Utilities
$0.19
$1.58
$0.37
$0.34
$0.13
$1.27
$2.26
$0.08
$1.15
$0.09
$0.24
$0.08
$1.10
$1.43
The cost category titled “Total Maintenance” above includes only preventive, recurring and
routine maintenance and repair costs. It does not include capital renewal or renovation
costs. The cost presented for this category includes the five individual cost categories which
follow. However, the aggregated costs provided in each of these categories do not equal
the “Total Maintenance” cost category amount due to different sample sizes for each of the
component cost categories.
Since the IFMA data is available for educational institutions, it was decided to use that
physical plant category as the basis for comparison of maintenance funding. Within that
physical plant category, the cost categories of External Building Maintenance, Interior
System Maintenance, and Utility/Central System Maintenance and their respective Mean
costs have been included to provide the comparison baseline. The Roads and Grounds
category is not being included because roads and grounds are not separated. The Process
Treatment/Environmental Systems category is not being included because it is unclear what
elements are included in this cost category. The total of the Mean costs provided for the
three cost categories being included is $1.32 per GSF.
The average M&O funding for the 05 and 06 fiscal years at Grays Harbor College was
$375,000, or approximately $1.25 per GSF of space maintained. This is $0.07 per GSF or
only 5.5% less than the IFMA comparison amount, which is a small difference. If the IFMA
amount is used as a benchmark for M&O funding, it appears that M&O funding at Grays
Harbor College is currently just adequate. However, this situation could change if
adequate additional M&O funding is not provided for new facilities coming on line.
Not maintaining adequate funding for preventive and routine maintenance and repairs could,
over time, result in greater reliance on capital repair and renovation dollars to correct
deferred routine maintenance as facility condition deteriorates. This is a self-fulfilling
outcome when routine maintenance is under funded for so long that, eventually, facility and
equipment deterioration become so severe that they can only be fixed with capital repair
dollars. At that point, repair costs will usually be far greater than if adequate routine
maintenance funding had been provided in the first place.
Management Philosophy
The overall maintenance management philosophy at Grays Harbor College continues to
focus on better integrating preventive and reactive maintenance, with the objective of
moving from viewing maintenance as a reactive process of “putting out fires” to a more
proactive process. An emphasis on preventive and recurring maintenance is part of that
7
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
proactive process. However, the challenge appears to be finding adequate time to
implement and execute a consistent PM program. This will also be more difficult in the
absence of an automated maintenance management system to accurately track
requirements and actual performance. Overall though, the college is making a strong effort,
and has succeeded in significantly reducing its capital repair backlog.
One very effective tool for maintenance management and long-term maintenance/repair
programming is the multi-year maintenance plan. A multi-year maintenance plan is typically
intended to serve as a guidance document by which an organization identifies and allocates
resources for a five-year planning period for the maintenance, repair and renovation of
building systems and components. A maintenance plan should identify specific
maintenance and repair requirements on an annual basis, lay out a proposed sequence for
funding and provide annual cost estimates and programming recommendations in an
integrated fashion. Currently, the college does not have a multi-year maintenance planning
process.
8
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The 2007 facility condition survey was designed to systematically update the estimated
costs of corrective action and relative priority of capital repair deficiencies identified during
the 2005 survey that were still unfunded or only partially funded. Emergent deficiencies
identified by the colleges that qualified as capital repair needs were also incorporated into
this survey. Deficiencies were prioritized using a scoring algorithm to derive a deficiency
score for each deficiency. This score is intended to assist the SBCTC in its allocation
deliberations for capital repair funding.
Survey Process
The facility condition survey itself was conducted as a five-part process. First, a listing of
facilities for each campus was obtained in order to verify the currency and accuracy of
facility identification numbers and names, as well as facility size.
Second, a listing was requested from each college that identified deficiencies from the 2005
survey that were funded and deficiencies that were not funded and would be evaluated for
incorporation into the current survey. In addition, each college was also asked to provide a
list with a brief description of emerging deficiencies it felt qualified for capital repair
consideration.
Third, an initial meeting was held with college maintenance personnel to review the
preliminary deficiency information received from the college, discuss the emergent
deficiency list provided by the college, and arrange for escorts and space access. The
survey was conducted by a team that included an architect or maintenance specialist and a
mechanical and electrical engineer. During the survey process team members interacted
with college maintenance personnel to clarify questions, obtain input as to equipment
operating and maintenance histories, and discuss suspected non-observable problems with
hidden systems and/or components.
In addition to the condition survey update, a building condition analysis was also conducted
for each building at a college. The objective of this analysis is to provide an overall
comparative assessment of each building at a college, as well as a comparison of facility
condition among colleges. Each facility was rated on the overall condition of some 23
separate building system and operating/adequacy characteristics. A total rating score was
generated for each facility and will serve as a baseline of overall condition that will be used
to measure improvements as well as deterioration in facility condition over time.
A site condition analysis was also conducted of each separate site at a college. The site
analysis rated some eight separate site characteristics to provide an overall adequacy and
needs evaluation of each college site. The rating and scoring processes for both
analyses are discussed in Appendix B.
Upon conclusion of the field survey an exit debriefing was held with college maintenance
personnel to present key findings of the survey process, provide an overview of overall
college condition, discuss any significant problems which should be immediately addressed,
and answer any final questions.
1
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
The fourth part of the process consisted of developing or updating MACC costs for each
deficiency and preparing the deficiency data for entry into the database management
system.
The last step in the process involved the preparation of the final deficiency reports
represented by this document.
The condition survey methodology used in this process is comprised of four basic elements:
1) A set of repair and maintenance standards intended to provide a baseline
against which to conduct the condition assessment process.
2) A deficiency scoring methodology designed to allow consistent scoring of capital
repair deficiencies for prioritization decisions for funding allocation.
3) A “conservative” cost estimating process.
4) A database management system designed to generate a set of standardized
detail and summary reports from the deficiency data.
Repair/Maintenance Standards
Repair and maintenance standards originally developed for the 1995 baseline survey were
used by the survey teams as a reference baseline for conducting the condition survey. The
standards were designed as a tool to assist facility condition assessment personnel by
identifying minimum acceptable standards for building system condition. The standards
provide a series of benchmarks that focus on:
 Maintaining a facility in a weather tight condition.
 Providing an adequate level of health and safety for occupants.
 Safeguarding capital investment in facilities,
 Helping meet or exceed the projected design life of key facility systems.
 Providing a baseline for maintenance planning.
Deficiency Documentation
Documentation of emerging capital repair deficiencies was accomplished using a field data
collection protocol designed by the consultant. The objective was to design a data collection
protocol that would allow efficient and consistent collection/documentation of capital repair
deficiency data as well as allow for ease of data entry into a computerized database
management system.
The deficiency data collection protocol includes five elements:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Campus/building identification information and deficiency designation;
Capital repair category and component identification;
Deficiency description, location, and associated quantity information;
Deficiency prioritization scoring choices;
Alternative repair information and a MACC cost estimate.
Deficiency Scoring
To assist in the process of allocating capital repair funding it was determined that each
deficiency would receive a score which would reflect its relative severity or priority compared
to other deficiencies. The scoring system was designed to maximize the objectivity of the
2
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
surveyor while maintaining a high level of consistency in application among different
surveyors.
A two-step scoring process was developed for the survey. First a deficiency is designated
as either critical or deferrable. A deficiency is designated as critical if it poses an imminent
threat to the health and/or safety of building users or occupants. If a deficiency is not
designated as critical it is by default deferrable. A deferrable deficiency can be deferred for
funding for up to two biennia from the date of the assessment without posing a significant
risk to health and/or safety. Deficiencies are designated as critical or deferrable by
assigning one of three time choices to the deficiency:
1) Critical - A deficiency that should be corrected as soon as possible.
2) Fund in 2009-11 - A Deferrable deficiency that can be deferred till for funding till
the 2009-11 biennium.
3) Deferred Backlog - A Deferrable deficiency that can be deferred for funding
beyond the 2009-11 biennium.
Once either criticality or deferability has been established a Priority is assigned to the
deficiency by selecting either one or two potential levels of impact in descending order of
relative importance:
 Health/Safety
 Building Function Use
 System Use
 Increased Repair/Replacement Cost
 Increased Operating Cost
 Quality of Use
Each impact choice is relatively less important than the one preceding it and the surveyor
assigns a percentage totaling 100% to one or two of the potential impacts.
A deficiency score is calculated for each deficiency by a scoring algorithm built into the
deficiency database management system, which combines the values assigned to the four
Critical/Deferrable choices and the six Priority choices to arrive at a total score for the
deficiency.
A detailed discussion of the deficiency severity scoring methodology is provided in
Appendix A.
Cost Estimates
The MACC cost estimates that have been provided for each deficiency represent the total
labor and material cost for correcting the deficiency, including sub-contractor overhead and
profit. The estimates are based either on the R.S. Means series of construction and repair
and remodeling cost guides for 2006/07, data from campus consultants provided to the
survey team by the college or the consultant’s own experience. In some cases cost
estimates are also obtained directly from vendors or construction specialists.
The cost estimates provided have been developed to be “conservative” in terms of total cost.
However, since the condition survey is based on a visual assessment, there are often
aspects of a deficiency that cannot be ascertained as they are hidden from view and a clear
picture of the extent of deterioration cannot be determined till such time as a repair is
actually undertaken. An example of this would be roof insulation or decking. Typically a
3
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
roof membrane replacement will not require insulation or decking replacement. However,
there are instances where once the membrane is removed it is determined that the decking
and/or insulation must also be replaced. In most cases the estimate for membrane
replacement will not include insulation and/or decking unless it is apparent through visual
indications on the surface of the deck via blisters or indication on the underside via
extensive staining, that the deck and/or insulation are also deteriorated. Or it may be
determined that the roof has inadequate slope or crickets for drainage that can only be
remedied through additional rigid insulation.
In some cases, if it is strongly suspected or evident that an unobservable condition exists,
the cost estimate is increased to include this contingency. However, assumptions about
underlying conditions are often difficult to make and, unless there is compelling evidence,
the estimate will not reflect non-observable or ascertainable conditions. Similarly the extent
of many structural deficiencies that may be behind walls, above ceilings, or below floors is
not visible and there are often no apparent signs of additional damage beyond what is
apparent on the surface. In such situations the cost estimate only includes the observable
deficiency unless documentation to the contrary is provided.
Survey Data Management and Reporting
The deficiency data identified and documented during the survey process is entered into a
computerized database management system developed for the 1995 baseline survey and
updated for the1999 survey. The DBMS is currently built with Microsoft’s Access2002
database software. Minor enhancements were also made for the 2005 survey, primarily in
response to recommendations made in the “Higher Education Facilities Preservation Study”
final report of 2003. Additional minor enhancements were made for the 2007 survey. These
include identification of the building system for a deficiency; an estimate of remaining life for
the affected system/component; an estimate of life expectancy when repaired or replaced;
and a projection of replacement dates over a 50 year life cycle period for deficiencies where
repair is by replacement.
Data reporting from the database system is accomplished through a set of standardized
detail and summary reports that provide a significant amount of information useful for capital
repair as well as maintenance planning and programming.
Facility Condition Survey Report Format
The facility condition survey report is divided into two major sections, the “Narrative
Summary” and “Summary/Detail Reports” that present the survey data in varying degrees of
detail in several subsections.
Narrative Summary
The first “Narrative Summary” subsection is titled “Introduction and Executive Summary”. It
includes a summary discussion of deficiencies identified through the survey; a discussion of
major infrastructure issues; maintenance/repair issues identified by the college maintenance
organization, which the survey team determined could not be addressed through the capital
repair process, and operational issues potentially impacting long-term facility condition; a
discussion of the consistency of repair requests with facility master planning; and a building
condition rating overview. The second subsection is titled “Facility Replacement and
Renovation Considerations”, and discusses facilities that are viewed as prime candidates for
replacement and major renovation over the next one to two biennia. The third subsection is
4
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
titled “Facility Condition and Maintenance Overview” and presents an overview of the
condition of campus facilities; an overview and discussion of maintenance staffing and
funding; and an overview and discussion of facility maintenance management issues. The
fourth subsection is titled “Survey Methodology” and discusses the methodology of the
condition survey, including the survey process; deficiency documentation; deficiency severity
scoring; cost estimating; data management and reporting; and the report format.
Summary/Detail Reports
The “Summary/Detail Reports” section of the report presents both summary and detail
deficiency data. The first subsection is titled “Repair Programming Summary” and provides
a summary deficiency cost estimate by building and by the criticality or deferability assigned
to each deficiency, and a facility repair programming summary report. The repair
programming summary report provides both descriptive and cost deficiency data for each
facility, categorized by the criticality or deferability assigned to each deficiency. The
designation of a deficiency as either Critical or Deferrable determines its recommended
programming timing. A deficiency designated Critical is an emergency that should not wait
till the 2009-2011 biennium for funding for corrective action. It is recommended that the
college consider requesting emergency funds to correct the deficiency as soon as possible
or within the next year. When a deficiency is designated as Deferrable it is designated
either as “Fund in 2009-11” or as “Deferred Backlog” which would defer it to at least 2012.
The second subsection is titled “Detailed Deficiency Data” and contains the detailed
deficiency data for each facility wherein deficiencies were identified. Each individual
deficiency report page provides detailed information on a single deficiency. The individual
deficiency pages are divided into five sections. The first section identifies the college and
campus, facility number and name, and provides the date of the field survey. The second
section identifies the assigned deficiency number, the applicable capital repair funding
category, the deferability recommendation, the affected component, and the affected
building system. The third section provides a description of the deficiency and
recommended corrective action, and any applicable sizing data. The fourth section
identifies the deficiency location, the probable cause of the deficiency, estimated remaining
life and life expectancy when repaired or replaced, the quantity involved, and estimated
replacement dates over a 50 year life cycle. The fifth section provides the MACC cost
estimate and the deficiency score for that deficiency based on the priority assignment and
percentage allocation for the assigned priorities.
The third subsection is titled “Site/Building Condition Analysis” and contains the site
condition analysis sheet for the main campus and any satellite campuses, and the building
condition analysis sheets for each facility. These sheets rate the each campus of a college
and each facility relative to eight site characteristics and twenty-three physical and
operating/adequacy characteristics.
The report also contains three appendices. Appendix A provides a detailed overview of the
deficiency severity scoring methodology employed by the survey team. Appendix B
provides an overview of the building/site condition analysis process, including the evaluation
standards and forms used in the analysis. Appendix C contains the capital repair request
validation criteria that were first developed for the 2001 survey process to insure a consistent
approach in identifying candidates for capital repair funding.
Survey Team
5
SBCTC 2007 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
Mr. Andre J. Pack, the President of Pack & Associates, Inc., was responsible for overall
project management and the coordination of the field survey team. Mr. Pack also served as
the construction technology and maintenance specialist for the survey team and was
responsible for evaluating roofing, interior/exterior closure and finish and paving systems.
Additional members of the survey team included Mr. David Coles, a mechanical/electrical
engineer.
Mr. Pack has over 25 years of experience in all facets of facility and infrastructure
maintenance management and operations. His experience includes a wide variety of facility
condition surveys for government agencies to identify and document maintenance, repair,
and capital improvement requirements; preparation of short and long range maintenance
plans and programs; providing training in maintenance management; and developing and
implementing maintenance management information systems. Mr. Pack has conducted
roofing, interior/exterior closure, finish, structural and site/paving condition surveys for some
700 facilities during the last ten years.
Mr. Coles has over 30 years experience in mechanical and electrical system design,
construction, operations, and maintenance. Mr. Coles has designed a variety of commercial
and institutional HVAC systems, and electrical power and distribution systems. He has also
been responsible for troubleshooting and repairing HVAC equipment, power systems and
control systems, and has investigated indoor air quality problems and developed mitigation
strategies. His experience includes condition assessments of more than 400 facilities to
identify system/component problems.
6
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY - COLLEGE DEFICIENCY SUMMARY BY BUILDING
Grays Harbor College
SITE NAME/
FACILITY
FACILITY NAME
# OF
DEF.
AVG. SVR.
SCORE
REPAIR COST
FCI
Main Campus
020001
Hillier Union Building (100)
1
44
$25,000
0.5%
020005
Physical Education (500)
1
50
$189,000
4.0%
020008
Physical Science (800)
3
35
$781,500
12.2%
020ST
Site
4
36
$219,200
SITE TOTAL
9
38
$1,214,700
COLLEGE TOTAL
9
38
$1,214,700
FCI (Facility Condition Index) = Repair Cost/Building Current Replacement Value (CRV)
The lower the FCI %, the better the overall facility condition. The higher the FCI %, the greater the repair and/or renovation
requirements.
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY - COLLEGE DEFICIENCY SUMMARY BY FUNDING CATEGORY
Grays Harbor College
SITE NAME/ FUNDING
CATEGORY
# OF DEF.
AVG. SVR.
SCORE
REPAIR COST
Main Campus
Facility
4
37
$806,500
Roof
1
50
$189,000
Site
4
36
$219,200
SITE TOTAL
9
38
$1,214,700
COLLEGE TOTAL
9
38
$1,214,700
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY - COLLEGE DEFICIENCY SUMMARY BY CAUSE
Grays Harbor College
SITE NAME/
CAUSE
AVG. SVR.
SCORE
# OF DEF.
REPAIR COST
Main Campus
Age/Wear
35
5
$1,018,400
Design
44
1
$75,300
Obsolescence
45
1
$71,000
Unknown
44
1
$25,000
Weather
38
1
$25,000
SITE TOTAL
38
9
$1,214,700
COLLEGE TOTAL
38
9
$1,214,700
BUILDING CONDITION RATING SUMMARY
Grays Harbor College
FACILITY #
FACILITY NAME
GSF
SITE
2007
2005
SCORE SCORE
020015
Library (1500)
17,554
Main Campus
150
020020
Manspeaker Instructional
71,755
Main Campus
154
020016A
Bishop Center Additon (1600A)
4,320
Main Campus
166
166
020022
Riverview Education Center
12,660
Raymond
174
174
020017
Aquaculture (1700)
3,856
Main Campus
220
220
020024
Simpson Education Center
3,728
Simpson Center
222
222
020023
Vocational Storage
960
Main Campus
228
228
020016
Bishop Center (1600)
12,824
Main Campus
240
272
020018
Heavy Equipment Shop (1800)
9,484
Main Campus
262
262
020021
GHC Whiteside
5,396
Whiteside
262
278
020005
Physical Education (500)
18,814
Main Campus
396
416
020001
Hillier Union Bldg. (100)
22,643
Main Campus
398
370
020008
Physical Science (800)
18,238
Main Campus
428
428
020007
Voktek (700)
23,305
Main Campus
434
418
020019A
Child Care Center (900A)
1,350
Main Campus
512
512
020019B
Child Care Center (900B)
2,550
Main Campus
512
512
020004
Social Science (400)
22,010
Main Campus
522
522
020006
Six (600)
14,939
Main Campus
526
526
020002
Administration (200)
12,437
Main Campus
548
548
020003
Life Science (300)
14,767
Main Campus
604
604
TOTAL GSF AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SCORE
293,590
146 - 175 = Superior
176 - 275 = Adequate
276 - 350 = Needs Improvement Through
Additional Maintenance
351 - 475 = Needs Improvement Through
Renovation
>475 = Replace or Renovate
330
150
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
BLDG: 020001
Hillier Union Bldg. (100)
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Student Center
MGMT. CODE: Replace - $150-$350/SF
Component
Score
SITE: Main Campus
22,643 SF
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Medium
BUILT: 1957
REMODELED:
CRV/SF:
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE:
$250
$5,660,750
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
24
8
8
Concrete; wood framing; seismic issues
Concrete; brick; marblecrete; generally good condition
New single-ply hypalon roof in 2002
40
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
9
3
3
9
24
Concrete; quarry tile; sheet vinyl; carpet; old 9x9 VAT in areas
Drywall; ceramic tile; good condition
Drywall; direct adhered tile; drop ceilings; generally good condition
Wood doors; metal doors; knob/lever hardware; some deterioration
6
40
24
24
24
One story
Older piping, college suspects deteriorating lines; newer fixtures
Hot water boiler and roof top packaged HVAC; mix of old and newer equipment
Inadequate distribution capacity in kitchen area
Ceiling fluorescent; mercury vapor; older fixtures in several areas
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
118
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
30 Generally meets codes for vintage of construction
10 Fire alarm; partial sprinklers
5
Modifications generally well-constructed
45
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
30
18
30
30
30
Multi-use building; design limits any efficient adaptability
Exterior is difficult to maintain properly
Structurally sound but older building; 10-15 years of life remaining
Kitchen is very inadequate; bldg. would not be cost-effective to renovate
Interior, except for kitchen, is average; exterior is very dated
138
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
12 Needs upgrading
12 Mostly double glazing; some single glazing; aluminum framed
24
Barrier-Free Access 9
Total Score 398
Compliant
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Previous Biennium Score: 370
Recommended Rating is: Needs Improvement Through Renovation
1994
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
BLDG: 020002
Administration (200)
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Administration
MGMT. CODE: Replace - $150-$350/SF
Component
Score
SITE: Main Campus
12,437 SF
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Medium
BUILT: 1957
Subtotal
24
24
40
Comment
Concrete; wood framing; some deterioration
Concrete; brick; marblecrete; some deterioration
BUR w/ UV coat-deteriorated; funded for replacement
88
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
9
9
9
9
36
Worn carpet; random deteriorating vinyl tile
Drywall; wood paneling; random deterioration
Drywall; direct adhered tile; some deterioration
Wood doors; knob hardware; older doors-need refinishing
6
40
40
24
24
One story
Old piping and combination of old and newer fixtures
Older HVAC equipment; deteriorating and inadequate
Adequate only for current program use
Ceiling mount and suspended fluorescent lighting; older fixtures
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
134
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
30 Some corridor/exiting issues
30 Fire alarm; no sprinklers; wood framing
25 Not considered cost-effective to modify
85
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
30
18
30
30
30
Many small spaces; difficult to adapt cost-effectively
Maintenance could be improved
TO BE DEMOLISHED
Older amenities throughout
Tired looking interior; poor finishes; old looking exterior
138
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
20 Marginal
20 Mostly single glazing; aluminum framed
40
Barrier-Free Access 27 Partial compliance
Total Score 548
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended rating is: Replace or Renovate
CRV/SF:
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE:
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
REMODELED:
Previous Biennium Score: 548
1996
$240
$2,984,880
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
BLDG: 020003
Life Science (300)
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: General Classroom
MGMT. CODE: Replace - $150-$350/SF
Component
Score
SITE: Main Campus
14,767 SF
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Medium
BUILT: 1957
REMODELED:
CRV/SF:
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE:
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
24
24
24
Concrete; wood framing; seismic concerns
Concrete and wood-random deterioration
Hypalon single-ply; average condition; needs maintenance
72
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
9
9
9
3
30
Carpet; vinyl tile; old ceramic tile; old sheet flooring
Drywall; ceramic tile; some deterioration throughout
Direct adhered tile; drop ceilings; wood; random deterioration
Newer wood doors and lever hardware throughout-good condition
30
40
40
40
40
One story
Old plumbing and fixtures-rest rooms are antiquated
Inadequate HVAC system
Inadequate distribution capacity; lack of circuits
Inadequate suspended and recessed ceiling fluorescent lighting
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
190
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
50 Corridor fire rating and seismic safety issues
30 Fire alarm; no sprinklers; wood framing
15 Modifications generally adequately constructed, but not cost effective
95
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
30
30
30
30
30
Design and construction make cost-effective adaptation difficult
Difficult to maintain in a cost-effective manner
REPLACEMENT SCIENCE BLDG. IN PRE-DESIGN
Inadequate size and amenities for contemporary science classrooms
Old "tired" building; built like old high school
150
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
20 Marginal
20 Single glazing; aluminum framed
40
Barrier-Free Access 27 Partial compliance
Total Score 604
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended rating is: Replace or Renovate
Previous Biennium Score: 604
1993
$280
$4,134,760
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
BLDG: 020004
Social Science (400)
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: General Classroom
MGMT. CODE: Replace - $150-$350/SF
Component
Score
SITE: Main Campus
22,010 SF
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Medium
BUILT: 1957
Subtotal
24
24
24
Comment
Concrete; wood framing; seismic concerns
Concrete; wood; some random deterioration
Hypalon single-ply; average condition; needs maintenance
72
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
9
9
9
9
36
Vinyl tile; carpet-some deterioration; ceramic tile-old
Drywall; vinyl wall covering; old ceramic tile
Direct adhered tile; some deterioration
Wood doors and lever hardware; doors need refinishing
6
40
40
24
24
One story
Old piping and fixtures; random fixture deterioration
Deteriorating HVAC system
Inadequate circuits for computers and program changes
Suspended and ceiling mount fluorescent lighting-older fixtures
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
134
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
30 Non fire rated corridors; seismic safety issues
30 Fire alarm; no sprinklers; wood framing
15 No considered cost-effective to modify further
75
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
30
18
30
30
30
Design and layout make adaptability difficult
Maintenance could be improved
BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED
Older amenities and finishes throughout original building
"Tired" building-old style high school construction
138
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
20 Marginal
20 Single glazing; aluminum framed
40
Barrier-Free Access 27 Partial compliance
Total Score 522
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended rating is: Replace or Renovate
CRV/SF:
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE:
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
REMODELED:
Previous Biennium Score: 522
1995
$280
$6,162,800
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Main Campus
BLDG: 020005
BUILT: 1957
REMODELED: 2001
Physical Education (500)
18,814 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Gymnasium
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Medium
CRV/SF: $250
MGMT. CODE: Major Renovation - $100-$200/SF
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $4,703,500
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
24
24
40
Concrete; wood framing; some seismic concerns
Concrete; drivit; brick; some deterioration
Hypalon roof; deteriorated-needs replacement
88
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
9
3
9
9
30
Wood; concrete; vinyl tile; ceramic tile; random deterioration
Concrete; drywall; ceramic tile; generally good condition
Old tectum ceilings; direct adhered tile-mostly newer
Mix of old and new wood and metal doors
6
24
8
8
24
One story
Old piping; old and new fixtures
Hot water gas boiler; packaged HVAC units; all newer equipment since 2000
Main and distribution panels upgraded in 2004
Older metal halide light fixtures; newer ceiling fluorescent lights
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
70
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
30 Generally meets codes for vintage of construction
10 Fire alarm; no sprinklers
15 HVAC support for some modifications is poor
55
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
18
6
30
30
18
Small building; no seating area for basketball court; very limited adaptability
Generally well maintained
Portion of gym and locker rooms have been renovated in 2001; remainder needs work
Mix of older and newer amenities; small locker rooms/shower areas
Tired building that has been partially renovated
102
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
12 Inadequate
12 Combination of single and double glazing; aluminum framed
24
Barrier-Free Access 27 Partial compliance
Total Score 396
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Previous Biennium Score: 416
Recommended Rating is: Needs Improvement Through Renovation
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
BLDG: 020006
Six (600)
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: General Classroom
MGMT. CODE: Replace - $150-$350/SF
Component
Score
SITE: Main Campus
14,939 SF
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Medium
BUILT: 1964
Subtotal
24
24
24
Comment
Concrete; wood framing; seismic concerns
Concrete; marblecrete; wood; window walls; some deterioration
Hypalon single-ply; average condition; needs maintenance
72
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
9
3
9
9
30
Old carpet and vinyl tile throughout; some ceramic tile
Drywall; ceramic tile; generally good condition
Direct adhered tile-generally some deterioration
Wood doors; old and new hardware; doors need refinishing
6
40
40
24
24
One story
Old piping and fixtures; general deterioration
Deteriorated HVAC system
Adequate only for current program use
Older ceiling mount fluorescent fixtures
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
134
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
30 Seismic safety and corridor fire protection issues
30 Fire alarm; no sprinklers; wood framing
25 Minor modifications; not cost-effective to modify
85
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
30
18
30
30
30
Not cost-effective to adapt; too small
Maintenance could be improved
BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED
Older amenities throughout; inadequate for instructional use
"Tired" building-high school feel
138
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
20 Marginal
20 Single glazing; aluminum framed
40
Barrier-Free Access 27 Partial compliance
Total Score 526
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended rating is: Replace or Renovate
CRV/SF:
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE:
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
REMODELED:
Previous Biennium Score: 526
$280
$4,182,920
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Main Campus
BLDG: 020007
BUILT: 1972
REMODELED:
Voktek (700)
23,305 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Vocational Arts
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Medium
CRV/SF: $280
MGMT. CODE: Major Renovation - $100-$200/SF
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $6,525,400
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
8
8
24
Concrete; CMU; wood framing
CMU; concrete; brick; generally good condition
Standing seam metal; hypalon single-ply is deteriorated; funded in 07 to replace
40
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
9
9
9
9
36
Concrete; vinyl tile; ceramic tile; some deterioration
CMU; drywall; ceramic tile; some deterioration in shop areas
Drywall; wood; direct adhered tile; some deterioration in shop areas
Wood doors; metal doors-some deterioration
18
24
40
24
24
No elevator to lower area
Older piping and fixtures but serviceable
Univents and packaged HVAC units; deteriorated; funded in 07 to replace
Inadequate for expanding welding and auto shop programs
Suspended and ceiling mount fluorescent lights-older
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
130
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
30 Generally meets codes for vintage of construction
10 Fire alarm; partially sprinkled
15 Welding and auto programs to be moved by early 2008
55
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
30
18
18
30
18
Very poor adaptability for vocational program expansion
Roof and exterior maintenance need improvement
Building is structurally sound; well suited for long term maintenance/support use
Inadequate for heavy vocational programs like welding or auto repair
Nice exterior; tired interior
114
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
12 Marginal
20 Single glazing; aluminum framed
32
Barrier-Free Access 27 Partial compliance
Total Score 434
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Previous Biennium Score: 418
Recommended Rating is: Needs Improvement Through Renovation
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Main Campus
BLDG: 020008
BUILT: 1971
REMODELED:
Physical Science (800)
18,238 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Science Lab.
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Heavy
CRV/SF: $350
MGMT. CODE: Major Renovation - $100-$200/SF
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $6,383,300
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
8
24
24
Concrete; CMU; steel framing
Concrete; CMU; brick; plaster; plaster surfaces are generally deteriorating
Hypalon single-ply-needs maintenance; metal-good condition; bad gutters
56
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
9
3
9
9
30
Ceramic tile; vinyl tile; carpet; random deterioration
Drywall; CMU; ceramic tile; wood strips
Drop ceilings-some tile and grid deterioration; direct adhered tile
Wood and laminate doors; knob hardware; older with some deterioration
18
24
40
40
24
Older; needs renovation
Older plumbing and fixtures; piping is clogged and deteriorating
General HVAC deterioration; aging heat pumps; inadequate fume hoods
Inadequate for program changes and computer additions
Recessed and suspended ceiling fluorescent lights-older
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
146
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
30 Generally meets codes for vintage of construction
30 Fire alarm; partially sprinkled; fire alarm is obsolete
5
Modifications adequately constructed
65
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
18
18
18
18
18
Adaptability somewhat limited by size
Bldg. has some design elements that make it difficult to maintain
Well constructed but will need renovation or major remodel within 5 years
Interior amenities are very dated; need upgrading
Reasonable looking exterior; aging interior
90
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
12 Inadequate
20 Single glazing; aluminum framed; energy inefficient
32
Barrier-Free Access 9
Total Score 428
Compliant
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Previous Biennium Score: 428
Recommended Rating is: Needs Improvement Through Renovation
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Main Campus
BLDG: 020015
BUILT: 1966
REMODELED: 2003
Library (1500)
17,554 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Library
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Medium
CRV/SF: $250
MGMT. CODE: Manage with RMI Repair and Minor Works
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $4,388,500
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
8
8
8
Wood; concrete
Concrete; brick; metal panels; aluminum window walls; all new
Hypalon single-ply roof membrane - new
24
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
3
3
3
3
12
New carpet, vinyl tile, slate tile, ceramic tile and cement throughout
New drywall, wood and ceramic tile throughout
New suspended ceilings throughout
New wood and metal doors and HM frames; lever hardware
6
8
8
8
8
New elevator
All new piping and fixtures throughout
New hot water boilers, chiller, air handlers and VAV boxes
New service and distribution throughout
All new suspended indirect fluorescent ceiling lights and track lights throughout
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
38
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
10 Meets all current codes
10 Fore alarm and sprinklers throughout
5
Entire interior was gutted and renovated
25
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
6
6
6
6
6
Good adaptability for spaces on lower level
Renovation in process of being completed
Bldg. Renovated in 2003; renovation should extend life by 25+ years
Very nice amenities throughout building to support library and computer labs
Building now sets standard for campus for design and construction quality
30
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
4
8
Adequate
Double glazing; aluminum framed
12
Barrier-Free Access 9
Total Score 150
Compliant
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended Rating is: Superior
Previous Biennium Score: 150
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Main Campus
BLDG: 020016
BUILT: 1974
REMODELED:
Bishop Center (1600)
12,824 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Performing Arts
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Medium
CRV/SF: $300
MGMT. CODE: Manage with RMI Repair and Minor Works
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $3,847,200
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
8
24
8
Wood framing; brick; some steel
Brick-generally good condition; plaster soffits-cracked
Significant portion of roof tile replaced in 2005
40
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
3
3
3
9
18
Carpet; sheet vinyl; wood; ceramic tile; good condition
Drywall; brick; wood strip; generally good condition
Drywall; plywood; good condition
Exterior wood doors deteriorating; laminate interior doors
6
24
24
8
8
One story
Older piping and fixtures but adequate
Air handlers and packaged HVAC; some deterioration
Adequate for program use
Ceiling mount fluorescent and incandescent lighting-good condition
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
70
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
10 Generally meets codes
10 Fire alarm; partially sprinkled
5
None noted
25
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
18
6
18
6
6
Limited adaptability for other than performing arts
Generally well maintained
Well constructed building, but 30+ years old
For theater or large assembly use
Very nice interior and exterior
54
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
12 Marginal
12 Single glazing; wood framed
24
Barrier-Free Access 9
Total Score 240
Compliant
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended Rating is: Adequate
Previous Biennium Score: 272
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Main Campus
BLDG: 020016A
BUILT: 2003
REMODELED:
Bishop Center Additon (1600A)
4,320 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Performing Arts
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Light
CRV/SF: $300
MGMT. CODE: Manage with RMI Repair and Minor Works
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $1,296,000
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
8
8
8
Wood framing; raised foundation
Brick; plywood soffits; hardi-board siding
3-tab asphalt shingles over wood deck
24
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
3
3
3
3
12
Plywood; sheet vinyl; ceramic tile
Painted drywall; ceramic tile
Painted drywall; direct adhered ceiling tile
Wood and HM doors; HM frames
6
8
8
8
8
One story
Copper piping and vitreous china fixtures
Hot water boiler; split system heat pumps; electric wall heaters
Adequate for program use
Hanging and ceiling mount fluorescent lights; recessed can lights
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
38
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
10 Generally meets codes
10 Fire alarm; sprinkled
5
Brand new addition to main building
25
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
18
6
6
6
6
Limited adaptability for other than performing arts
Generally well maintained
New addition; should have 25+ year life
For performing arts support
Very nice interior and exterior
42
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
4 Adequate
12 Aluminum framed double glazing
16
Barrier-Free Access 9
Total Score 166
Compliant
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended Rating is: Superior
Previous Biennium Score: 166
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Main Campus
BLDG: 020017
BUILT: 1984
REMODELED:
Aquaculture (1700)
3,856 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Science Lab.
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Light
CRV/SF: $225
MGMT. CODE: Manage with RMI Repair and Minor Works
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $867,600
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
24
8
8
CMU; wood framing; garage has a minor slab sinking problem
CMU; T1-11 plywood; good condition; rear side needs some painting
3-tab asphalt shingles-good condition
40
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
3
3
3
3
12
Concrete throughout-good condition
Drywall; CMU; good condition
Direct adhered tile; drywall; plywood; generally good condition
HM doors; lever hardware; wood doors; good condition
6
8
8
8
8
One story
Newer plumbing fixtures and piping
Electric heaters only-good condition
Adequate for size and use
Ceiling mount fluorescent lighting-good condition
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
38
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
10 Generally meets codes
30 No alarm; no sprinklers
5
None evident
45
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
18
6
6
6
6
Limited by small size of building
Well maintained
Newer building; should have 20+ years of remaining life
Adequate amenities for program use
Very serviceable interior and exterior
42
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
12 Inadequate
4 Double glazing; vinyl clad wood framing
16
Barrier-Free Access 27 Partial compliance
Total Score 220
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended Rating is: Adequate
Previous Biennium Score: 220
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Main Campus
BLDG: 020018
BUILT: 1988
REMODELED:
Heavy Equipment Shop (1800)
9,484 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Vocational Arts
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Light
CRV/SF: $280
MGMT. CODE: Manage with RMI Repair and Minor Works
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $2,655,520
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
8
8
24
Steel frame
Metal wall-good condition
Metal roof; defective panels; rust and fastener leaks; funded for coating in 05
40
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
3
3
3
3
12
Concrete throughout; portion is coated; good condition
Drywall; vinyl-clad insulation; good condition
Drop ceilings; plywood; vinyl-clad insulation; generally good
HM doors; knob hardware; metal overhead doors; good condition
6
8
24
24
8
One story
Newer piping and fixtures
Gas unit heaters and electric wall heaters-newer; poorly designed fume exhaust system
Adequate for program use, but not for expansion
Recessed and ceiling mount fluorescent; metal halide; good condition
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
70
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
10 Generally meets codes
10 Fire alarm; no sprinklers
5
No modifications evident
25
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
18
6
18
30
18
Open interior, but size limits adaptability
Generally well maintained
Newer building; 25+ year life expectancy; but has some design issues
Inadequate for expanding vocational program use; too small
Nice exterior; very serviceable interior
90
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
4 Adequate
12 Double glazing; aluminum framed
16
Barrier-Free Access 9
Total Score 262
Compliant
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended Rating is: Adequate
Previous Biennium Score: 262
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
BLDG: 020019A
Child Care Center (900A)
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Child Care
MGMT. CODE: Replace - $150-$350/SF
Component
Score
SITE: Main Campus
BUILT: 1988
1,350 SF
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Temporary
REMODELED:
CRV/SF:
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE:
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
24
24
8
Wood framing; lack of adequate seismic bracing
T1-11 plywood-good condition; random deterioration
Hypalon single-ply-good condition
56
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
9
9
9
9
36
Carpet; vinyl tile; some deterioration
Wood paneling-random deterioration
Drop ceilings-some deterioration
Wood doors; lever hardware; doors are dinged and marred
6
24
40
24
24
One story
Older piping and fixtures
Wall mount packaged HVAC units; inadequate for program
Inadequate for any expansion
Older fixtures; not energy efficient
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
118
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
30 Generally meets codes for type and vintage of construction
50 Fire alarm; no sprinklers; wood construction
25 Not cost effective to modify due to size and construction
105
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
30
18
30
30
30
No adaptability due to size and construction
Difficult to maintain properly
Portable that was already used when acquired by College in 1988
Totally inadequate for child care
Average looking interior and exterior for portable; inadequate for program
138
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
20 Marginal
12 Double glazing; aluminum framed
32
Barrier-Free Access 27 Partial compliance
Total Score 512
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended rating is: Replace or Renovate
Previous Biennium Score: 512
$175
$236,250
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
BLDG: 020019B
Child Care Center (900B)
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Child Care
MGMT. CODE: Replace - $150-$350/SF
Component
Score
SITE: Main Campus
BUILT: 1988
2,550 SF
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Temporary
REMODELED:
CRV/SF:
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE:
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
24
24
8
Wood framing; lack of adequate seismic bracing
T1-11 plywood-good condition; random deterioration
Hypalon single-ply-good condition
56
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
9
9
9
9
36
Carpet; vinyl tile; some deterioration
Wood paneling-random deterioration
Drop ceilings-some deterioration
Wood doors; lever hardware; doors are dinged and marred
6
24
40
24
24
One story
Older piping and fixtures
Wall mount packaged HVAC units; inadequate for program
Inadequate for any expansion
Older fixtures; not energy efficient
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
118
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
30 Generally meets codes for type and vintage of construction
50 Fire alarm; no sprinklers; wood construction
25 Not cost effective to modify due to size and construction
105
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
30
18
30
30
30
No adaptability due to size and construction
Difficult to maintain properly
Portable that was already used when acquired by College in 1988
Totally inadequate for child care
Average looking interior and exterior for portable; inadequate for program
138
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
20 Marginal
12 Double glazing; aluminum framed
32
Barrier-Free Access 27 Partial compliance
Total Score 512
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended rating is: Replace or Renovate
Previous Biennium Score: 512
$175
$446,250
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Main Campus
BLDG: 020020
BUILT: 2006
REMODELED:
Manspeaker Instructional
71,755 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: General Classroom
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Heavy
CRV/SF: $280
MGMT. CODE: Manage with RMI Repair and Minor Works
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $20,091,400
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
8
8
8
Steel frame; cast concrete
Aluminum framed window walls; concrete; brick; metal wall panels; T&G wood
Single-ply TPO membrane
24
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
3
3
3
3
12
Polished concrete; carpet; ceramic tile; 2x4 end-grain wood
Painted drywall; bare concrete; ceramic tile; acoustical panels
Open mesh and solid panel suspended ceilings; painted drywall
Wood doors w HM frames; aluminum framed glazed entry doors
6
8
8
8
8
4 stop
Copper, PVC, and black iron pipe; vitreous china fixtures
Rooftop packaged DX heating and cooling units
2000 amp service
Hanging ceiling strip and can fluorescent lights; recessed can fluorescent lights
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
38
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
10 Meets 2006 codes
10 Fire alarm and sprinklers
5
Brand new building
25
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
6
6
6
6
6
Has good adaptability potential for instructional use
Brand new building; could be a maintenance challenge
Should have a 50 year life
Very nice instructional amenities
Well designed exterior; nice interior but somewhat stark hallways
30
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
4 Adequate
12 Aluminum framed double glazing
16
Barrier-Free Access 9
Total Score 154
Fully compliant
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended Rating is: Superior
Previous Biennium Score:
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Whiteside
BLDG: 020021
BUILT: 1919
REMODELED: 1997
GHC Whiteside
5,396 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Mixed Use
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Light
CRV/SF: $240
MGMT. CODE: Manage with RMI Repair and Minor Works
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $1,295,040
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
8
8
24
Wood framing; average to good condition
New vinyl siding-some minor damage
Standing seam metal-new; hypalon-new; BUR-older
40
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
9
9
3
3
24
Carpet and sheet vinyl; random carpet deterioration and staining throughout
Drywall-new; plaster-original
Drywall; direct adhered tile; drop ceilings; wood ceilings good condition
Wood doors and lever hardware-good condition
6
8
8
8
8
New elevator
New piping and fixtures in 97
New roof mounted heat pumps and ductwork in 97
Service upgraded in 97
Ceiling mount and recessed fluorescent lighting-good condition
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
38
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
10 Generally meets code
30 No fire alarm; no sprinklers; wood framing
5
Renovations appear adequately constructed
45
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
18
6
30
18
18
Limited by building design
Generally well maintained
Old building with face-lift
For special instructional use only
Renovation has significantly improved appearance; building still old
90
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
12 Inadequate
4 Double glazing; vinyl clad
16
Barrier-Free Access 9
Total Score 262
Compliant
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended Rating is: Adequate
Previous Biennium Score: 278
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Raymond
BLDG: 020022
BUILT: 1925
REMODELED: 2001
Riverview Education Center
12,660 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: General Classroom
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Medium
CRV/SF: $280
MGMT. CODE: Manage with RMI Repair and Minor Works
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $3,544,800
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
8
24
8
Concrete; wood framing; very good condition
Wood horizontal beveled siding-mix of original and new
New 3 tab asphalt shingles and mineral surfaced capsheet
40
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
3
3
3
3
12
New carpet, vinyl tile and sheet flooring throughout
New drywall and vinyl wall covering throughout
New direct adhered tile, drop ceilings and drywall throughout
New wood doors and lever hardware throughout
6
8
8
8
8
New elevator
New piping and fixtures throughout
New roof mount packaged HVAC units; classroom univent-type units
New main service and distribution wiring
New recessed fluorescent and ceiling hung fixtures
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
38
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
10 Generally meets codes
10 Fire alarms; no sprinklers
5
None
25
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
6
6
18
6
6
Large basement areas available for future program use
Appears to be very well maintained
$1.5 million renovation of 77 year old building in 2001, but well done
As a satellite instruction building
Very nicely remodeled interior and exterior
42
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
4
4
Subtotal
8
Barrier-Free Access 9
Total Score 174
Adequate
Double glazing; vinyl clad
Compliant
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended Rating is: Superior
Previous Biennium Score: 174
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Main Campus
BLDG: 020023
BUILT: 1997
REMODELED:
Vocational Storage
960 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: Storage
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Light
CRV/SF: $150
MGMT. CODE: Manage with RMI Repair and Minor Works
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $144,000
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
8
8
8
Wood framing; concrete slab
Metal wall panels; generally good condition
Metal roof-generally good condition
24
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
3
3
3
3
12
Concrete-good condition
Metal wall panels-good condition
No ceiling
HM doors and frames; metal overhead doors-manual
6
8
8
8
8
One story
No plumbing
No HVAC
Adequate for use
Fluorescent lights-good condition
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
38
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
10 Generally meets codes for storage use
30 No alarm or sprinklers
5
None evident
45
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
18
6
18
18
6
Limited due to small size
Well maintained
20 to 25 year life
For storage only
Nice appearing storage facility
66
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
12 Inadequate
4 No windows
16
Barrier-Free Access 27 Partial compliance
Total Score 228
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended Rating is: Adequate
Previous Biennium Score: 228
BUILDING CONDITION RATING
COLLEGE: Grays Harbor College
SITE: Simpson Center
BLDG: 020024
BUILT: 1998
REMODELED:
Simpson Education Center
3,728 SF
PREDOMINANT BLDG. USE: General Classroom
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Temporary
CRV/SF: $175
MGMT. CODE: Manage with RMI Repair and Minor Works
CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE: $652,400
Component
Score
Comment
Primary Systems
Structure
Exterior Closure
Roofing
Subtotal
8
8
8
Wood framing
T1-11 plywood-good condition
Metal roof-good condition
24
Secondary Systems
Floor Finishes
Walls - Finishes
Ceiling Finishes
Doors-Hardware
Subtotal
3
3
3
3
12
Carpet throughout-good condition
Vinyl wall panels-good condition
Drop ceilings throughout-good condition
HM doors and frames-new
6
8
8
8
8
None
None
Newer exterior wall mount packaged HVAC units
Adequate for space use
New recessed ceiling fluorescent
Service Systems
Elevators
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical Service
Lights/Power
Subtotal
38
Safety Systems
Life/Safety
Fire Safety
Haphazard Mod.
Subtotal
10 Generally meets codes
30 No alarm; no sprinklers
5
None evident
45
Functional Standards
Adaptability
Deferred Maint
Remaining Life
Adequacy
Appearance
Subtotal
18
6
18
18
18
Double-wide portable-limited adaptability
Generally well maintained
Newer portable building; 15 to 20 year economic life
For limited instructional use only
Average looking interior and exterior
78
Energy Conservation
Wall/Ceiling Insul.
Glazing
Subtotal
12 Inadequate
4 Double glazing; vinyl framed
16
Barrier-Free Access 9
Total Score 222
Compliant
(Score Range = 146 - 730)
Recommended Rating is: Adequate
Previous Biennium Score: 222
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY - COLLEGE DEFICIENCY SUMMARY BY BUILDING
Grays Harbor College
SITE NAME/
FACILITY
FACILITY NAME
# OF
DEF.
AVG. SVR.
SCORE
REPAIR COST
FCI
Main Campus
020001
Hillier Union Building (100)
1
44
$25,000
0.5%
020005
Physical Education (500)
1
50
$189,000
4.0%
020008
Physical Science (800)
3
35
$781,500
12.2%
020ST
Site
4
36
$219,200
SITE TOTAL
9
38
$1,214,700
COLLEGE TOTAL
9
38
$1,214,700
FCI (Facility Condition Index) = Repair Cost/Building Current Replacement Value (CRV)
The lower the FCI %, the better the overall facility condition. The higher the FCI %, the greater the repair and/or renovation
requirements.
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY
DEFICIENCY DETAIL
SURVEY DATE:
Grays Harbor College
Main Campus
FACILITY: 020001
DEFICIENCY:
Hillier Union Building (100)
01F
AFFECTED COMPONENT:
08/07
Page 1
Student Center
Facility
Fund in 2009 - 2011
Drain Tile
BUILDING SYSTEM: Utilities
DEFICIENCY/CORRECTION:
The existing sectional concrete drain tile, which is connected to the building roof downspouts, has plugged
and broken sections that inhibit proper flow of water from the downspouts. This causes water to back up in
the downspouts and results in roof leaks. The drain line needs to be excavated and replaced. NOTE: This
building is a high priority candidate for replacement. If a replacement project is approved as part of the
2009-11 Capital Budget Request submittal, this deficiency should not be funded for repair.
4" line
LOCATION:
Adjacent to building foundation
Probable Cause of Deficiency is Unknown
ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE
2 Yrs.
LIFE EXPECTANCY NEW:
50Yr. Life Cycle Renewal - Replace in 2009
2039
30 Yrs.
QUANTITY:
200 LF
PRIORITY
Bldg. Function Use
System Use
50
50
Deficiency Severity Score =
44
Estimated MACC Repair Cost in July 2008 = $25,000
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY
DEFICIENCY DETAIL
SURVEY DATE:
Grays Harbor College
Main Campus
FACILITY: 020005
DEFICIENCY:
Physical Education (500)
01R
AFFECTED COMPONENT:
08/07
Page 2
Gymnasium
Roof
Fund in 2009 - 2011
Single-Ply Membrane
BUILDING SYSTEM: Roof
DEFICIENCY/CORRECTION:
The single-ply roof membrane on this building is deteriorating and should be replaced. This is a hypalon
membrane that is seventeen years old and exhibits chalkiness of the surface as well as the beginnings of
"scrim" exposure that indicates wear of the membrane body. This roof should be stripped to the deck and
new rigid insulation board ase well as a TPO type membrane and new flashings installed. NOTE: This
facility is a high priority candidate for renovation. If a renovation project is approved through the 2009-11
Capital Budget Request, this deficiency should be funded as part of the renovation.
LOCATION:
Entire roof
Probable Cause of Deficiency is Age/Wear
ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE
2 Yrs.
LIFE EXPECTANCY NEW:
50Yr. Life Cycle Renewal - Replace in 2009
2029
2049
20 Yrs.
QUANTITY:
180 SQ
PRIORITY
Bldg. Function Use
100
0
Deficiency Severity Score =
50
Estimated MACC Repair Cost in July 2008 = $189,000
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY
DEFICIENCY DETAIL
SURVEY DATE:
Grays Harbor College
Main Campus
FACILITY: 020008
DEFICIENCY:
Physical Science (800)
02F
AFFECTED COMPONENT:
08/07
Page 3
Science Labs
Fund in 2009 - 2011
Facility
Plaster Facing and Brick
BUILDING SYSTEM: Exterior Closure
DEFICIENCY/CORRECTION:
The exterior plaster facing on a number of areas of the building has been a constant maintenance headache
for a number of years. The plaster is constantly cracking, allowing water to leak into the building. The
design and detailing of this facing is very poor, which has resulted in continuing problems despite previous
repair. A portion of this facing has been applied over the cast concrete structural members of the building.
This plaster should be removed and the concrete left bare and sealed. It is felt this could alleviate a large
portion of the problem. There are also a number of cracked and broken bricks on other sides of this
building that need to be replaced, along with deteriorated mortar and some fascia deterioration that needs to
be repaired.
LOCATION:
Perimeter of building
Probable Cause of Deficiency is Design
ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE
2 Yrs.
LIFE EXPECTANCY NEW:
25 Yrs.
QUANTITY:
1 LS
PRIORITY
Bldg. Function Use
System Use
50
50
Deficiency Severity Score =
44
Estimated MACC Repair Cost in July 2008 = $75,300
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY
DEFICIENCY DETAIL
SURVEY DATE:
Grays Harbor College
Main Campus
FACILITY: 020008
DEFICIENCY:
Physical Science (800)
03F
AFFECTED COMPONENT:
08/07
Page 4
Science Labs
Facility
Fund in 2009 - 2011
HVAC System
BUILDING SYSTEM: HVAC
DEFICIENCY/CORRECTION:
The HVAC system and associated fiberboard ductwork throughout the building is deteriorating, experiencing
increasing maintenance problems, and is no longer cost-effective to repair. The rooftop components are
badly rusted and could fail within the next year. There are also inadequacies in the ventilation portion of the
system due to original design inadequacies and program changes over the years. This system is over 35
years old and should be replaced. Replacement should include a DDC system to replace existing
pneumatic controls.
LOCATION:
Throughout the building
Probable Cause of Deficiency is Age/Wear
ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE
2 Yrs.
LIFE EXPECTANCY NEW:
50Yr. Life Cycle Renewal - Replace in 2009
2039
30 Yrs.
QUANTITY:
1 LS
PRIORITY
Bldg. Function Use
System Use
50
50
Deficiency Severity Score =
44
Estimated MACC Repair Cost in July 2008 = $256,200
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY
DEFICIENCY DETAIL
SURVEY DATE:
Grays Harbor College
Main Campus
FACILITY: 020008
DEFICIENCY:
Physical Science (800)
04F
AFFECTED COMPONENT:
Facility
08/07
Page 5
Science Labs
Deferred Backlog
HVAC Ductwork
BUILDING SYSTEM: HVAC
DEFICIENCY/CORRECTION:
The fiberboard ductwork for the HVAC system is slowly deteriorating, exhibiting failing joints, some areas of
collapse, and general disintegration of the fiberglass fibers. This ducting is no longer considered costeffective to repair. The ducting is over 35 years old and should be replaced.
LOCATION:
Throughout the building
Probable Cause of Deficiency is Age/Wear
ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE
2 Yrs.
LIFE EXPECTANCY NEW:
50Yr. Life Cycle Renewal - Replace in 2009
2039
30 Yrs.
QUANTITY:
1 LS
PRIORITY
Bldg. Function Use
System Use
50
50
Deficiency Severity Score =
18
Estimated MACC Repair Cost in July 2008 = $450,000
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY
DEFICIENCY DETAIL
SURVEY DATE:
Grays Harbor College
Main Campus
FACILITY: 020ST
DEFICIENCY:
Site
Site
01S
AFFECTED COMPONENT:
08/07
Page 6
Site
Fund in 2009 - 2011
Exterior Doors
BUILDING SYSTEM: Exterior Closure
DEFICIENCY/CORRECTION:
The Marlock Company, which manufactured the security locksets on a number of exterior doors on campus,
ceased operation several years ago. Since that time the college has managed to repair/replace
deteriorated locksets with spare parts. However, the college can no longer repair these locksets as parts
are no longer available and different locksets cannot be adapted in place of the existing. It is therefore
necessary to replace the doors to accommodate new security locksets.
LOCATION:
Buildings 100, 500, 700, 800 and 1600
Probable Cause of Deficiency is Obsolescence
ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE
2 Yrs.
LIFE EXPECTANCY NEW:
50Yr. Life Cycle Renewal - Replace in 2009
2034
2059
25 Yrs.
QUANTITY:
20 EA
PRIORITY
Health/Safety
System Use
30
70
Deficiency Severity Score =
45
Estimated MACC Repair Cost in July 2008 = $71,000
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY
DEFICIENCY DETAIL
SURVEY DATE:
Grays Harbor College
Main Campus
FACILITY: 020ST
DEFICIENCY:
Site
Site
02S
AFFECTED COMPONENT:
08/07
Page 7
Site
Fund in 2009 - 2011
Asphalt Paving
BUILDING SYSTEM: Paving
DEFICIENCY/CORRECTION:
The asphalt paving on two portions of main access roadway are badly deteriorated, with extensive cracking,
slumping and alligatoring across the surface. These sections of roadway needs to be repaved with a new 3inch and 4-inch traffic layers.
LOCATION:
From main campus entrance to Lot A turn-off and access road in front of Bishop Center
Probable Cause of Deficiency is Age/Wear
ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE
2 Yrs.
LIFE EXPECTANCY NEW:
50Yr. Life Cycle Renewal - Replace in 2009
2034
2059
25 Yrs.
QUANTITY:
2541 SY
PRIORITY
Health/Safety
System Use
25
75
Deficiency Severity Score =
44
Estimated MACC Repair Cost in July 2008 = $71,000
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY
DEFICIENCY DETAIL
SURVEY DATE:
Grays Harbor College
Main Campus
FACILITY: 020ST
DEFICIENCY:
Site
Site
03S
AFFECTED COMPONENT:
08/07
Page 8
Site
Fund in 2009 - 2011
Storage Lot
BUILDING SYSTEM: Paving
DEFICIENCY/CORRECTION:
The vehicle storage lot serving the Heavy Equipment building has deteriorated to the point that there are
extensive potholes and the lot floods easily when it rains. This makes it very difficult to work on equipment
or move equipment. The lot should be regraded and resurfaced with 1-1/4 inches of crushed rock.
LOCATION:
Behind Heavy Equipment building
Probable Cause of Deficiency is Weather
ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE
2 Yrs.
LIFE EXPECTANCY NEW:
10 Yrs.
QUANTITY:
1 LS
PRIORITY
System Use
100
0
Deficiency Severity Score =
38
Estimated MACC Repair Cost in July 2008 = $25,000
FACILITY CONDITION SURVEY
DEFICIENCY DETAIL
SURVEY DATE:
Grays Harbor College
Main Campus
FACILITY: 020ST
DEFICIENCY:
Site
Site
04S
AFFECTED COMPONENT:
08/07
Page 9
Site
Deferred Backlog
Asphalt Paving
BUILDING SYSTEM: Paving
DEFICIENCY/CORRECTION:
The asphalt paving on two portions of campus roadway are slowly deteriorating, exhibiting some cracking
and alligatoring. These sections of roadway will need to be repaired, including new traffic layers.
LOCATION:
From Lot A entrance to intersection of road to 800 bldg. And in area of Lake Swano
Probable Cause of Deficiency is Age/Wear
ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE
5 Yrs.
LIFE EXPECTANCY NEW:
50Yr. Life Cycle Renewal - Replace in 2012
2037
2062
25 Yrs.
QUANTITY:
2534 SY
PRIORITY
Health/Safety
System Use
25
75
Deficiency Severity Score =
18
Estimated MACC Repair Cost in July 2008 = $52,200
BUILDING CONDITION RATING SUMMARY
Grays Harbor College
FACILITY #
FACILITY NAME
GSF
SITE
2007
2005
SCORE SCORE
020015
Library (1500)
17,554
Main Campus
150
020020
Manspeaker Instructional
71,755
Main Campus
154
020016A
Bishop Center Additon (1600A)
4,320
Main Campus
166
166
020022
Riverview Education Center
12,660
Raymond
174
174
020017
Aquaculture (1700)
3,856
Main Campus
220
220
020024
Simpson Education Center
3,728
Simpson Center
222
222
020023
Vocational Storage
960
Main Campus
228
228
020016
Bishop Center (1600)
12,824
Main Campus
240
272
020018
Heavy Equipment Shop (1800)
9,484
Main Campus
262
262
020021
GHC Whiteside
5,396
Whiteside
262
278
020001
Hillier Union Bldg. (001)
22,643
Main Campus
370
370
020005
Physical Education (500)
18,814
Main Campus
396
416
020008
Physical Science (800)
18,238
Main Campus
428
428
020007
Voktek (700)
23,305
Main Campus
434
418
020019A
Child Care Center (900A)
1,350
Main Campus
512
512
020019B
Child Care Center (900B)
2,550
Main Campus
512
512
020004
Social Science (400)
22,010
Main Campus
522
522
020006
Six (600)
14,939
Main Campus
526
526
020002
Administration (200)
12,437
Main Campus
548
548
020003
Life Science (300)
14,767
Main Campus
604
604
TOTAL GSF AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SCORE
293,590
146 - 175 = Superior
176 - 275 = Adequate
276 - 350 = Needs Improvement Through
Additional Maintenance
351 - 475 = Needs Improvement Through
Renovation
>475 = Replace or Renovate
328
150
IX
2005 Facilities Condition Survey
SBCTC 2005 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the week of June 12, 2005 a facility condition survey was conducted at the Grays
Harbor College campus in Aberdeen, Washington. The focus of the survey, at the direction
of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, was to identify and document
deficiencies that would qualify as capital repair projects for the 2007-2009 biennium, as well
as deficiencies that would be backlogged for funding after 2009.
The survey had a dual focus. First, deficiencies identified during the 2003 survey that had
not been funded for repairs, or only partially funded, were reviewed to determine changes in
these deficiencies since the 2003 survey. Changes were recorded and cost estimates for
correcting the deficiencies updated. Each deficiency was also re-prioritized using the
prioritizing system that was developed in 1995 and modified in 1999. Second, a review and
documentation of “emerging” deficiencies identified by the college was conducted.
“Emerging” deficiencies that qualified as capital repairs were also prioritized and cost
estimates for corrective action developed. Campus areas not owned or managed by the
State, dormitories, parking lots, potential asbestos problems covered by the SBCTC
hazardous material/asbestos abatement pool, deficiencies covered under existing
warranties, and new construction project deficiencies were not addressed as part of this
effort.
College Overview
Grays Harbor College, which was founded in 1930, serves communities throughout Grays
Harbor and Pacific counties in the central and south coastal areas of Washington. Located
in Aberdeen, the college has been in operation at the current site since 1957. The college
was part of the local school district until 1967, when it became part of the state higher
education system. The college also owns three off-campus facilities, one located in
downtown Aberdeen, one located in Elma, east of Aberdeen, and one located in Raymond,
south of Aberdeen. In addition class sites are also located in Raymond, South Bend,
Willapa Valley, Ocosta, North Beach, Taholah, Ilwaco and Naselle high schools.
The main campus is located on approximately 120 acres of land within the city limits of
Aberdeen and houses 14 facilities (see campus map on following page), 2 of which are
portables. Of the 14 facilities, nine are considered academic facilities, 4 are administrative
and student service facilities, and 1 is a storage facility. These facilities range in size from
960 GSF to 23,305 GSF, and were constructed between 1957 and 1997. Half of the
facilities at this campus were constructed between the late 50s and mid 60s and are now
between 39 and 48 years old. The newest instructional facility was constructed in 1988.
One of the off-campus buildings, the Whiteside Building, is located in downtown Aberdeen,
some three miles from the main campus. The building is a 5,396 GSF facility that was
constructed in 1901, used as a funeral home, and extensively renovated by the college after
it was acquired eight years ago. The second off-site facility, the Simpson Education Center,
is a 1,792 GSF portable located in Elma, approximately twenty-two miles east of Aberdeen.
The facility was constructed in 1998. The third off-site facility, the Riverview Education
Center, is a renovated 12,660 GSF former elementary school located in Raymond, some
twenty-five miles south of Aberdeen. The facility was constructed in 1925 and totally
3
SBCTC 2005 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
renovated in 2000. It replaced the GHC on the Willapa -South Bend Center, which opened in
1997.
Deficiency Survey Update Summary
In general the facilities at Grays Harbor College are in average to good condition for their
use and age. The condition survey identified a total of 2 capital repair deficiencies with an
estimated July 2006 MACC repair cost of $816,600 for the college. One of these
deficiencies is a carryover identified during the 2003 condition survey that was not funded for
the current biennium. The scope of this carryover deficiency has not been modified based
on the results of the 2005 condition survey.
In addition to the capital repair deficiencies that have been identified, there is approximately
$1,438,800 in deficiencies that would need to be addressed within the next two biennia if
funding for a renovation project being proposed for the Physical Science (800) building is not
secured. These deficiencies are provided at the end of the next section in this report titled
“Facility Replacement and Renovation Considerations”.
Capital Repair Requirement Overview
The capital repair requirement identified during this survey is focused on one roof and one
HVAC system repair.
 The hypalon roof membrane on the Voktek (700) building is deteriorating, largely
because of welding dust and particulates, which can be corrosive, being exhausted
from the rooftop exhaust system and settling on the membrane surface. Once the
welding program is relocated from this building to a new building that has been
funded this biennium, and the Voktek building is renovated, the membrane should
be replaced.
 The HVAC system in this building is slowly deteriorating and largely inadequate to
serve the changing demands of the vocational and technical programs being
supported. Portions of the system have been replaced over the years, but not well
integrated. The result is a largely inadequate system that needs to be replaced and
upgraded. The dust collection system serving this building is also deteriorated and
should be replaced.
Major Infrastructure Issues
The current college master plan does not address the existing condition of campus
infrastructure such water distribution, storm and sanitary sewers, and electrical distribution.
No issues with these systems have been identified in the master plan and no major
infrastructure issues requiring capital repairs have been identified for 2005 by the college.
Consistency of Repair Requests with Facility Master Planning
Since capital repair funding is derived largely from long-term State bond indebtedness, the
investment of capital repair dollars in a facility should result in a long-term benefit, a
minimum of thirteen years according to SBCTC policy. This means that facilities for which
capital repair dollars are being requested should have a reasonable remaining life
expectancy to recover the repair dollar investment. It also means that capital repair requests
for facilities that a college has identified as high priority renovation candidates should be
4
SBCTC 2005 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
carefully scrutinized to make sure that the repairs will have provided a long term benefit
before any renovation is considered.
For these reasons one of the criteria used for the capital repair request validation process is
to review the college’s master plan relative to the facilities for which capital repair dollars are
being requested. The purpose of the review is to determine what the medium and long term
planning and programming objectives of the college are with respect to the facilities for
which capital repair dollars are being considered. The objective is to determine what the
College considers the life expectancy of these facilities to be, and what major planned
program/use changes, or proposed major renovations, if any, are being considered. This
will assist in determining whether or not the proposed capital repair projects have economic
merit. The sole deficiency discussed above is in a facility that, according to the college
master plan, will be utilized for the long-term.
The Voktek (700) building, constructed in 1971, was part of the third phase of construction
on the main campus. Voktek is reasonably well constructed and in good structural
condition. However, many of the building and program amenities in the building are
deteriorating and inadequate. For the current biennium, renovation funding has been
received to effect a comprehensive interior renovation of the existing building, address
serious code and safety issues, and construct new space to serve the welding and
automotive programs. The capital repair to the roof was not included in the interior
renovation request as it had been separately identified and would have been required
irrespective of renovation funding.
The proposed capital repair for the building discussed above does not appear to be in any
conflict with any planning/utilization initiatives identified for this building in the master plan.
Special Concerns
No special concerns that do not qualify for capital repairs have been identified at the college.
Building Condition Rating Overview
The overall condition of the facilities at Grays Harbor College ranges from poor to very good,
and varies significantly, as is evidenced by the Building Condition Analysis Summary form
presented on the following page. The rating scores presented in this summary were
generated by the condition analysis conducted as part of the 2005 condition survey.
In previous years, buildings that received additions to the original building were treated as
one building for rating purposes. However, it became apparent that this created two
significant disadvantages. The first disadvantage was that while the original portion of a
building might qualify as a renovation or replacement candidate if it stood on its own, the
inclusion of additions in most cases resulted in a score that was not high enough to qualify
that portion for consideration. The second disadvantage was that in calculating a deficiency
score for some types of deficiencies, such as HVAC equipment or roofs, if the deficiency
applied to only to the original portion of a building or one of the major additions, it did not
score as high as if it applied to the entire building. This often adversely impacted the chance
of such a deficiency being funded.
To remedy these disadvantages it was decided that for the 2005 rating process, and going
forward, larger additions to buildings would be separated from the original building and rated
5
SBCTC 2005 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
BUILDING CONDITION RATING SUMMARY
Grays Harbor College
FACILITY #
FACILITY NAME
GSF
SITE
2005
2003
SCORE SCORE
020015
Library (1500)
17,554
Main Campus
150
020016A
Bishop Center Additon (1600A)
4,320
Main Campus
166
020022
Riverview Education Center
12,660
Raymond
174
174
020017
Aquaculture (1700)
3,856
Main Campus
220
204
020024
Simpson Education Center
3,728
Simpson Center
222
222
020023
Vocational Storage
960
Main Campus
228
228
020018
Heavy Equipment Shop (1800)
9,484
Main Campus
262
262
020016
Bishop Center (1600)
12,824
Main Campus
272
268
020021
GHC Whiteside
5,396
Whiteside
278
278
020001
Hillier Union Bldg. (001)
22,643
Main Campus
370
318
020005
Physical Education (500)
18,814
Main Campus
416
412
020007
Voktek (700)
23,305
Main Campus
418
408
020008
Physical Science (800)
18,238
Main Campus
428
364
020019A
Child Care Center (900A)
1,350
Main Campus
512
282
020019B
Child Care Center (900B)
2,550
Main Campus
512
282
020004
Social Science (400)
22,010
Main Campus
522
496
020006
Six (600)
14,939
Main Campus
526
490
020002
Administration (200)
12,437
Main Campus
548
512
020003
Life Science (300)
14,767
Main Campus
604
416
TOTAL GSF AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SCORE
221,835
146 - 175 = Superior
176 - 275 = Adequate
276 - 350 = Needs Improvement Through Additional Maintenance
351 - 475 = Needs Improvement Through Renovation
>475 = Replace or Renovate
6
386
150
SBCTC 2005 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
separately for condition. In addition, deficiencies would be treated separately for these
additions, as long as equipment or component distinctions could readily be identified.
As can be seen, the rating scores for college facilities range from a low of 150 for the newly
renovated Library (1500) to a high of 604 for Life Science (300), with a lower score indicating
a better overall condition rating (see page 1 of the Facility Condition/ Maintenance Overview
section for a breakdown of the rating scores). In general, the better scores were received by
the newer facilities, major facility additions, and facilities that have undergone major
renovation or remodels in recent years.
For 2005, the method of calculating the average building condition rating score for a college
has also changed. In previous years, the average score was calculated as a simple
arithmetic average by totaling all individual building scores and dividing by the number of
facilities that were rated. However, in analyzing and comparing building scores, it was
discovered that, in many instances, the arithmetic average was not truly reflective of the
“average” condition of a college. Smaller buildings, such as portables, that were in poor
condition could increase (worsen) the average score for a college, even if most other larger
facilities were in good condition. To remedy this situation, it was determined that calculating
a weighted average score instead of an arithmetic average would be more reflective of the
average building condition at a college. This weighted average score is calculated by
summing the GSF of all buildings rated and dividing that total by the total of all individual
building scores.
The weighted average score for all facilities was 386, indicating that overall, college facilities
are below-average. However, this score is still somewhat skewed by the fact that, even
though a replacement building for three facilities (200, 400, and 600) is currently under
construction, these facilities, all of which are have high condition rating scores, will not be
demolished till the new building is completed. One additional academic building and two
portables also have high scores. These buildings are high priority candidates for
replacement. Of the remaining buildings, 60% are rated as either Superior or Adequate.
The challenge for the college going forward will be to effectively focus its emphasis in the
coming years on enhancing the maintenance of the main campus facilities so as to optimize
the life cycle of new facilities, major renovations and major remodels, and insure its
remaining older facilities remain attractive to the students and community. Grays Harbor
College is in the mature phase of its existence in terms of overall facility age. The college
will have to adopt a multi-year approach to programming recurring maintenance and repairs
and providing adequate funding for PM to critical systems, especially in newer facilities.
7
SBCTC 2005 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
FACILITY REPLACEMENT AND RENOVATION CONSIDERATIONS
Facility Replacement Priorities
The majority of the instructional and support facilities at the college are between 31 and 48
years old, and all of the instruction and support facilities on campus were constructed
between 1957 and 1988. There were three major phases of construction at Grays Harbor
College. Initial construction at the main campus began in 1957, when five facilities were
constructed—the Hillier Union Building (100), Administration (200), Life Science (300),
Social Science (400), and Physical Education (500). Two facilities, the Six (600) building
and the Library (1500) were constructed during the 1960s. Three additional facilities,
Physical Science (800), Votkek (700) and Bishop Center (1600) were constructed in the
early 1970s. Only two new instructional buildings have been built at Grays Harbor since the
1970s, Aquaculture, constructed in 1984, and the Heavy Equipment Shop (1800),
constructed in 1988.
Major additions to four of the five buildings built in 1957 were constructed in 1964.
Administration, the Hillier Union Building, and the Bishop Center have also had fairly recent
addition and renovation projects that have improved their utility and safety. In 2004 the
College completed a major renovation of the Library, which included expansion to gain
additional space to meet current and future needs.
This summer, construction began on a new 68,000 GSF classroom and administration
building to replace the 200, 400 and 600 buildings. The new building will solve critical space
needs for a variety of administrative and academic programs in the social sciences. Once
the new building is completed, three of the oldest buildings on campus will be demolished.
A master plan document for Grays Harbor College was completed in December of 2001 and
is currently being revised. This plan document identifies new construction, renovation and
expansion initiatives over the next ten years.
Life Science (300)
Replacement of this building, which houses general instruction classrooms, is the highest
priority for the College. Aside from its relatively small size (14,767 GSF), which creates
problems for optimizing space utilization and adapting to changing program needs, there are
several concerns with the 300 building, the biggest of which is with respect to its structural
design. The feeling is that there is a lack of structural resistance to wind and/or seismic
lateral forces in this building, particularly in an east/west direction. There is also a lack of
one-hour fire-resistive corridors, and corridor relite glazing that far exceeds the maximum
area of glazing allowed by the UBC for one-hour corridors. The poor thermal envelope of
this building allows a constant drain on valuable energy resources and results in increasing
energy consumption and operating cost. Exterior walls consist of eight inches of concrete
with 5/8” drywall furring strips without insulation. All windows are single glazed in steel
frames without thermal breaks. There is minimal batt insulation at the roof. All of these
factors make the building impossible to operate in an energy-efficient manner.
1
SBCTC 2005 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
The HVAC design standards in place at the time of construction dictated outside air
ventilation volumes that are grossly insufficient when compared to today’s standards. The
increasing use of computers and office machines has resulted in heat gains that load the
HVAC equipment well beyond original design parameters. In addition, the HVAC system
has not generally been included in space alterations and modifications over the years, with
the result that the overall system is now inefficient in many areas and has resulted in poor air
quality.
Certain interior amenities such as flooring and ceilings have been replaced over the years.
However, these system are aging and will need to be replaced in the near to mid-term. The
plumbing system is mostly original and is aging as well. The electrical distribution capacity
is largely inadequate and electrical panels have run out of expansion capability. Lighting is
a mix of older and newer fixtures, but is inadequate in many spaces. The restrooms in this
building are problematic for accessibility and sound control is a major issue, as noise is
easily transmitted from one classroom to another, creating frequent distractions for students
and faculty.
Overall, this is a very tired-looking building, both inside and outside. It is no longer
satisfactory for current or future science and technology education, and is even inadequate
as a general classroom building. A major renovation would definitely NOT be cost-effective
as it would not be able to address basic design shortcomings, size issues, or the age factor.
A replacement of this building with a new building that could also consolidate and
provide enhanced functional spaces for the science programs in Physical Science
(800) is viewed as a very cost-effective and desirable strategy. Construction of a new
science building, along with the new instructional facility currently under construction, would
replace four of the oldest and most inadequate facilities on this campus. These buildings,
along with the recent Library renovation, the pending Voktek renovation, and a renovation of
Physical Science, would significantly modernize this campus. They would also provide the
physical resources that will attract students, provide an enhanced learning environment, and
better serve the needs of the community well into the future.
Child Care Center (900A & B)
The child care program at Grays Harbor College is currently housed in two portables that
have been at the college for over twenty years and were already used when purchased by
the college. These portables re no longer adequate to serve existing needs and are
becoming very crowded, seriously impairing the ability of the program to accept additional
children. Discussions with staff indicate that they are already seriously overloaded during
the winter quarter.
The HVAC system in these portable, which consist of wall-mounted exterior units, is very
inefficient and generally inadequate for this type of use. The number of bodies in these
facilities is typically places too great a load on the systems. The spaces are very small,
space modifications are almost impossible, and there are numerous code violations that
would have to be addressed in any significant upgrade of these facilities. These buildings
are potential fire traps. They have an alarm, but no sprinklers.
It is felt that any attempt to upgrade these portables would be money that is simply
wasted. System repairs and/or replacement as deterioration progresses would also
be money that is wasted. The College needs a new, permanent, well constructed, and
safe child care facility of adequate size not only for current, but also for future needs.
2
SBCTC 2005 Facility Condition Survey
Grays Harbor College
Renovation Priorities
The college has received funding for a comprehensive interior renovation of the Voktek
(700) facility that currently serves several vocational programs, including welding,
automotive technology and carpentry. In addition, the college maintenance department
occupies the lower floor of this two-story structure built in 1971. The renovation will include
construction of additional space for the welding and automotive programs.
The highest priority outstanding renovation need at Grays Harbor College is for the Physical
Science (800) building. This 18,238 GSF facility was built in 1971. The building is
constructed of concrete with steel framing and CMU, and is considered to be in average
condition for its age and use. However, there are problems with several building systems
that are becoming increasingly serious. The plaster facing on much of the building
experiences on-going cracking due to a variety of factors, which has resulted in high
maintenance and repetitive repair costs. There are many single-glazed windows in the
building that are not sealed well and very energy inefficient.
The HVAC system was originally designed to provide minimum acceptable heating and
ventilation and is grossly undersized for many of the areas it serves. The chemistry labs had
an inadequate number of fume hoods and the resulting corrosive environment in the labs
has resulted in damage to electrical boxes and grounding wires. The hot and cold water
copper plumbing lines throughout the building are experiencing an increasing number of line
leaks and the plumbing fixtures are mostly older. The fire alarm needs upgrading to meet
current standards.
On the lower level of the building, the acoustics in the instructional spaces are very poor,
due primarily to large areas of bare concrete and CMU in classrooms and lecture halls. This
makes for a very poor instructional environment. In addition, the relatively small size of the
building has resulted in related science programs being located in various facilities
throughout the campus.
In general, most of the systems and amenities in this building are 34 years old and showing
their age. Piecemeal repair and replacement is no longer considered a good strategy as it
would not be cost-effective. Though it is too small and inefficient for science programs,
there is re-use potential in this building. Structurally the building appears sound and should
be retained.
One planning strategy that could have some merit, and is considered cost-effective, would
be to renovate this building for use for the college’s current and growing information
technology educational programs, once a new science building has been completed.
Currently these programs are dispersed around the campus and, according to discussions
with administrative personnel, will be growing in the future. A building the size of 800 might
be ideal for consolidating the existing programs and creating a central location for IT
education.
The minimum “deficiencies” that would need to be corrected in lieu of a renovation
project are provided on the following pages.
Photos illustrating some of the general condition issues with both the Physical
Science (800) building and the Child Care Center (900 A & B) buildings are provided
on the pages following the deficiency write-ups.
3
X
2003 Facilities Condition Survey