II. condition of FACILITIES

DATA BELOW IS FROM THE FY 2001 REPORT. (NOTE: AGENCY 220 WAS ABSORBED INTO AGENCY 215 ON JULY 1, 2004.)

FACILITIES INVENTORY

Facilities constitute the largest single asset type at the University of Mary Washington. Our facilities include more than 50 buildings and their infrastructure, encompassing over one million gross square feet of building space, with an estimated plant replacement value in excess of $150 million.

For administrative purposes the University's budget is divided into separate accounts, and the information in this report is divided into these categories as well. Agency 215 Educational and General (E&G) refers to the academic component of the College. It includes all the space used for functions supported by general funds allocated by the Commonwealth. Examples of Agency 215 E&G facilities are buildings containing classrooms and labs, as well as faculty offices and other spaces used by those who support teaching and research efforts. Agency 215 Auxiliary spaces are those that house functions which may support Agency 215 activities but do not receive E&G funds. These activities generally support themselves by charging fees for their services. The Residence Halls are examples of Agency 215 Auxiliary buildings. Table 1 below shows the number of buildings, gross square feet and replacement value of the buildings maintained by the University of Mary Washington. Note: The mixed-use buildings, Ann Carter Lee and Seacobeck, are included in the building count as Auxiliary, but building areas have been split out based on assignment.

Table 1

Agency	Number of Buildings	Gross Square Feet	Replacement Value
Agency 215 E & G	18	604,896	$89,917,522
Agency 215 Auxiliary	26	602,359	$82,100,267
Agency 220	11	17,418	$6,050,000
MWC Foundation	2	4080	$376,000
TOTAL	57	1,228,753	$178,443,789

Figure 3 illustrates that most E & G buildings in the College's total inventory are 30 or more years old. Significant construction took place between 1930 and 1969. In part, this reflects the general national expansion of colleges and universities in the post WWII period.

Figure 3 Period of Construction of E & G Space

graph

The construction of Auxiliary buildings, shown in Figure 4, reveals a considerable peak in the period of 1950-1969. Usage and age of these buildings is such that renovation or replacement must be considered.

Figure 4 Period of Construction of Auxiliary Space

graph

CONDITIONS OF THE FACILITIES

Since 1994, the University's facilities have been inspected under a continuing assessment and inspection program. The program is a repeating cycle of inspections that identify and record existing and developing maintenance needs in areas such as mechanical, electrical, structural and roofing. The facilities inspection program has been continually improved since its inception.

Maintenance needs are defined as those repairs that are needed to correct existing and developing maintenance deficiencies in the buildings at the time of the inspections. Consequently, figures for correcting maintenance deficiencies do not include the cost
of possible renovations or upgrades to a buildings, only the cost of repairing what is there now. The costs are estimates by Facilities Services staff based upon experience, and they are only intended to be sufficiently accurate to reflect the magnitude of the repairs needed in a particular building, as well as the needs of one facility relative to another. The dollar values as of June 30, 2001 for the maintenance deficiencies in each building belonging to Agency 215 E&G are included in Appendix C. Similar data for Agency 215 Auxiliary is included in Appendix D. For the purposes of this report, repairs to a building system or component estimated to cost over $25,000, with the exception of painting, were classified as maintenance reserve deficiencies. The costs of other, less expensive, repairs were included in the operating budget deficiency totals.

Table 2 below summarizes the relationship between the replacement value of the buildings and the dollar value of the deficiencies documented in those areas.

Table 2

Agency	Replacement Value	Deficiency Total	Average
Agency 215 E & G	$88,067,664	$7,190,747	7.8%
Agency 215 Auxiliary	$71,098,801	$12,868,870	18.6%
Agency 220	$6,055,000	$680,000	11.2%
MWC Foundation	$376,000	$0	0.0%

Replacement value is the figure accepted by the College's Office of Business and Finance as the amount each building should be insured for in the event of a total loss. It is the estimated cost to replace the building and its systems. It does not include the value of the furnishings or other items not permanently part of the facility, nor does it include design and project management costs. Replacement values are updated by an inflation factor at the end of each fiscal year.

FCI is the Facility Condition Index. This is calculated by dividing the value of the deficiencies in a building or the infrastructure by the replacement value of the building or infrastructure, and showing the result as a percentage. It is an accepted measure used to indicate the "seriousness" of the deficiency total. A five million-dollar building with $100,000 worth of deficiencies is in far better condition than a $600,000 building with the same amount of deficiencies. The FCI is a simple way to express this.

In general an FCI of 0 to 5% is considered to indicate a building in good condition. The FCI for each building in Agency 215 is shown with the data in appendices D and E. Table 3 below summarizes the percentage of buildings that fall above or below the 5% level.

Table 3

Agency	FCI of 0 to 5%	FCI of 5% or above
Agency 215 E & G	55%	45%
Agency 215 Auxiliary	23%	77%
Agency 220	81%	18%
MWC Foundation	100%	.07%

The relatively better condition of E&G buildings reflects in part the renovations accomplished over the last two decades. Since the late 1970's most E&G buildings have had at least partial renovations. The only Auxiliary buildings to undergo renovation work during that same time were Willard and Mercer.

RESOURCES FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF E&G FACILITIES

Financial resources for the maintenance of the University's E&G facilities are derived from four principal sources, as summarized below:

a. Maintenance Operating Budget

Funding for preventive and routine maintenance activities in support of Agency 215 E&G is provided through the University's annual general fund operating budget. Resources expended through the maintenance operating budget for Agency 215 E&G for the 200-01 fiscal year totaled $1.1million.

b. Maintenance Reserve

Maintenance reserve is a component of the Commonwealth's Capital Outlay Budget appropriated by the General Assembly each biennium. Maintenance Reserve funding has totaled over $5.7 million for the University of Mary Washington since 1982.

Although funding levels have fluctuated widely from one biennium to the next, it remains a significant resource for the correction of major maintenance deficiencies in E & G buildings/facilities.

c. Capital Budget

Many older buildings need considerable renovation work to make them compatible with contemporary building and life safety codes as well as current research and teaching standards. In addition to the renovations done, many long-standing maintenance and repair needs are also corrected in the course of the work.

For this reason, capital renewal projects are considered a valuable resource to fund correction of maintenance deficiencies in existing buildings. Because of the large sums of money needed for these types of projects, they cannot be funded very often.

d. Student Fees

A building improvement fund is derived from a portion of the comprehensive fee charged to each student. This fund provides limited additional funding for improving and modernizing selected facilities. An annual budget of approximately $50,000 is used to fund classroom improvement projects that are prioritized by the Dean of Faculty.

TRENDS AND IMPLICATIONS

Table four below illustrates what has happened to the FCI for Agency 215 E&G over the last five fiscal years. This data is useful to determine trends and demonstrates the aging of our campus facilities. Deferred maintenance costs of campus infrastructure, e.g., steam tunnels, water lines, roads, and walkways, has been added as a separate line and pro-rated between E & G and Auxiliary.

If we were able to match the funds available for the maintenance and repair of our buildings and infrastructure with the rate of their decline, we could realize a condition of "maintenance equilibrium." In this state we would be correcting problems at approximately the same rate as their occurrence, and the average FCI would remain stable.

Table 4

Agency	1995-95	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99	1999-2000	2000-2001
Agency 215 E & G	11.9%	11.6%	9.4%	9.2%	7.8%	8.0%
Agency 215 Auxiliary	n/a	n/a	21.5%	18.6%	18.6%	16.5%
Agency 220	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	11.2%	11.2%
MWC Foundation	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	0.0%

The fluctuations in the FCI for are attributable to three principal factors. Adjustments in building replacement values and the completion of new buildings, such as JMC, result in lowering of the overall index. This does not mean that conditions in specific buildings are less critical, only that the average level of deferred maintenance is diluted by the addition of new space to the college inventory. The third factor was conversion to new estimating standards required by the State Council of Higher Education in 2001.

The higher FCI for Auxiliary buildings provides evidence that the University of Mary Washington's Auxiliary buildings are in need of renovation and renewal. Considerable renovation work over the next 15 to 20 years is recommended for the Auxiliary facilities.

STRATEGIES

Facilities Services has adopted the following four strategies:

1. Know the conditions of our facilities.

Through the continuous facilities assessment program discussed in this report, Facilities Services maintains a database of all facilities deficiencies, from which priorities for accomplishment, budgets, and work plans are developed.

2. Design for low maintenance costs.

In order to reduce continuing facilities maintenance and periodic renewal cost, as well as operating costs, Facilities Services seeks to design new and renovated facilities to ensure reasonable over-all life cycle costs. Typically, this is achieved through specification of materials, equipment, and building systems that may initially require somewhat Higher construction costs, but will yield greater savings in maintenance and operating costs over the life of the facility.

3. Set maintenance priorities.

The highest priority for utilization of available maintenance and repair resources is given to the correction of those deficiencies which represent safety or security deficiencies, or which, if uncorrected, would result in progressive deterioration of a facility. Maintenance reserve projects are chosen through a prioritization process that evaluates each potential project on several criteria, and involves input from community members outside of Facilities Services.

4. Support facilities funding strategies.

In order to ensure adequate financial support to its overall facilities goals, Facilities Services proposes to continue, or recommends consideration of, the following funding strategies for E&G facilities:

a. Maintenance Reserve: Recommend continuing efforts to maintain a strong support in the executive branch of State government and in the General Assembly for maintenance reserve funding under the biennial Capital Outlay appropriation.

b. Capital Outlay Program: Plan to continue to identify, prioritize, include in the biennial Capital Outlay program projects for the comprehensive capital renewal of the College's older and most deficient facilities, and for the replacement of obsolete major components of utility plants or systems.

c. Building Improvement Fee: Continue to use this student fee to provide for improvement of the College's E&G spaces.

CONCLUSION

The University of Mary Washington faces an exciting and challenging future. New programs and facilities, such as the expanding College of Graduate and Professional Studies, are broadening our opportunities to provide educational programs to the citizens of the Commonwealth. Developments in technology will shape how new facilities are built and how old ones are modernized. Other priorities compete for funding and we must make wise decisions concerning the long term effects on our buildings and grounds. Our facilities reflect a proud and distinguished heritage, but many of our older facilities will require capital renewal or replacement in order to meet changing program requirements and improve the quality of life for our students, faculty, and staff. The continued maintenance, alteration, and renovation of our existing facilities must proceed abreast with new construction in order to ensure that Mary Washington will be ready to serve the next generation of students.

II. Condition of Facilities

Appendix A: Agency 215 Biennial Capital Budget

Appendix B: Major Non-Capital Projects

Appendix C: Agency 215 Education and General Fund Facilities