UMW Facilities Assessment

1
UMW Facilities Assessment

• BOV Retreat
• July 14, 2007

2
Background

• The Commonwealth of Virginia has been using
  estimates of deferred maintenance for the basis
  of (EG) maintenance reserve funding for over 20
  years.
• Since 1995 SCHEV has required annual reports from
  colleges and universities.
• In 2005, APA required all state agencies to
  update their facilities inventories and begin
  comprehensive assessments and linked these to
  future capital funding requests.

3
UMW History

• First assessments were conducted in 1995 by
  staff.
• Later updated in 1997 with help of consultants.
• SCHEV developed new standards in 2001. UMW
  estimates revised accordingly.
• 2005 assessments, using new APA standards, again
  performed by staff.
• In fall 2006 VFA (same firm that provided
  database software to APA) conducted inspections
  of all UMW buildings.

4
Assessment Summary

• UMW buildings are valued at 202 million
• UMW infrastructure is valued at 42 million
• Total Deferred Maintenance (currently needed or
  overdue) is 64 million.
• The Facilities Condition Index, FCI, is .26
• FCI Deferred Maint./Replacement Value

5
Sample Assessment Data

• Monroe Hall

6
Requirements Renewals
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
System Renewals
Requirements (in addition to system items)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
Significance

• The FCI is a dashboard indicator of the overall
  physical condition of a single facility or a
  collection of facilities
• FCI lt .10 is considered to be good
• FCI lt .05 is excellent
• Conversely,
• FCI gt .25 indicates extensive repair and
  renovation needs
• FCI gt .50 requires consideration of replacement
  rather than renovation

19
Further UMW Observations

• FCI for EG buildings is .18 (18)
• FCI for Auxiliary buildings is .39 (39)
• FCI for Infrastructure is .18 (18)
• NOTE Infrastructure assessment performed by
  staff, not presently supported by FICAS software

20
Why?

• State has historically provided annual funds
  (although levels vary depending upon budget
  conditions) for EG buildings. Therefore EG
  buildings tend to be in better shape.
• Institutions are responsible for establishing
  Auxiliary fund reserves and planning projects for
  Auxiliary buildings.
• Most recent UMW Auxiliary fund projects have been
  new construction, not renovation of older
  buildings. E.g. Campus Center, Alvey, Arrington,
  South, and Fitness Center. (Seacobeck project
  completed in 2006 was first significant Auxiliary
  renovation since Willard Hall in 1979.)
  Furthermore, renovation projects for Auxiliary
  buildings must consider impact on revenue streams.

21
How does UMW compare?

• According to VFA, UMW buildings are typical of
  those of most small to medium public institutions
  which theyve assessed in the last five years.
• SCHEV reports that average E G FCI for public
  comprehensive institutions is essentially the
  same as UMW conditions. (Auxiliary data is not
  reported to SCHEV.)

22
(No Transcript)
23
How do we use this information?

• It validates historical E G projects and
  supports ongoing efforts to secure both capital
  and maintenance reserve funding.
• For UMWs Auxiliary buildings it brings attention
  to the significant deferred needs. We will
  require honest business evaluation of renovation
  projects as well as possible demolition and
  replacement for structures that are not well
  suited to renovation or program adaptation.
• The data aids in establishing project priorities
  for both E G as well as Auxiliary buildings.