Higher Education Facility Study, Revised 2020
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITY STUDY Prepared for the Washington State Office of Financial Management August 2019 Revised: April 2020 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SECTION 1: OVERVIEW AND CONSIDERATIONS 11 SECTION 2: CLASSROOMS + INSTRUCTIONAL LABORATORIES 23 SECTION 3: RESEARCH SPACE 47 SECTION 4: OFFICE SPACE 55 SECTION 5: LIBRARY + STUDY/COLLABORATION SPACE 63 SECTION 6: OTHER NON‐RESIDENTIAL SPACE 71 SECTION 7: SUPPORT / PHYSICAL PLANT SPACE 81 SECTION 8: SCOPE + COST RANGE ANALYSIS 87 SECTION 9: RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE OFM HIGHER EDUCATION CRITERIA + SCORING STANDARDS 125 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A – ANALYTICAL OUTCOMES BY COLLEGE/CAMPUS A.1 APPENDIX B – SPACE ALLOCATION QUICKBOARD B.1 APPENDIX C – DATA REQUEST FORM C.1 APPENDIX D – REVISED HE2019‐21 SPACE ALLOCATION + AVAILABILITY D.1 APPENDIX E – COLLEGES/CAMPUSES INCLUDED + EXCLUDED FROM STUDY E.1 APPENDIX F – NORMALIZATION OF SPACE INVENTORY F.1 0 Office of Financial Management 2019 Higher Education Facility Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The goal of this study is to provide the Office of Financial Management, the Legislature, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, and the public four‐year institutions of higher education with updated methods and outcomes to prioritize the development, construction, and planning of future higher education facilities. INTRODUCTION In December 2008, Berk & Associates completed a Higher Education Capital Facilities Financing Study (Berk Report). The primary goal of the Berk Report was to provide the government with a comprehensive review of revenue source and cost management strategies used in the State of Washington and the Washington Learns Global Challenge States. The Berk Report also served to identify potential new revenue sources and cost saving strategies for higher education capital facilities. The analysis and recommendations in the Berk Report addressed the establishment of expected cost ranges by facility type. This study builds upon and updates portions of the Berk Report and informs the October 1994, Facilities Evaluation and Planning Guide (FEPG). The FEPG was originally completed in 1976 by representatives from each of the four‐ year colleges and universities, with assistance from OFM and the now dissolved Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) and SBCTC. It was later revised in 1994 by the Interinstitutional Committee of Space Officers representing the public four‐year colleges and universities. The facilities classification put forward in this guide was modeled after the National Center for Educational Statistics, Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual, 1992 revision (FICM). This study makes recommendations to the FEPG in terms of classification strategies, classroom and class laboratory utilization, and for some space allocations. This study analyzes six overarching space categories along with a scope and cost range analysis. Each space category is analyzed uniquely with a proposed space allocation. The scope and cost range analyzes the reasonableness of cost by facility type and life cycle costs. The objectives and scope of work are described in ESSB 6095 Section 1023 (http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/lbns/2018Cap6095‐S.SL.pdf) and outlined in Section 1.1 of this study. Multiple meetings, in person and via conference call, were held in order to understand the scope of the project thoroughly. These meetings were held with representatives of OFM, the legislative staff. Meetings were also held with the institutions of higher education to garner additional input into the process, fully understand data the institutions provided, and to talk through the proposed standards. In order to test a variety of hypotheses, a thorough data collection effort was created. In some cases, more data than necessary was collected in order to help explain various findings and examine if there was enough consistency of data between the institutions. The ultimate goal is to use data that is already generated by the institutions for other reporting processes. The room inventory was normalized so that it was easy to compare space between Executive Summary 1 campuses. Not all campuses were included from the community and technical colleges as they are in process of updating their inventory and not all institutions were finished with their space audits. INTENTIONS OF THE OFM SPACE ALLOCATIONS The budgeted space allocations are intended to be a tool by which to measure—in a standardized manner—how a project will affect space on a campus. Contrary to popular belief, there is not a set of national standards or metrics when it comes to space in higher education. Less than 50% of the states have space guidelines, and of those that do, most of those guidelines are outdated. Therefore, using the consultant teams’ experience, best practices, and current design thinking, a set of space allocations have been established for this study. The space allocations are not intended to be space design guidelines or metrics. While supported by current design thinking, there is no way that one set of simplistic space allocations can determine the amount of space needed for a particular college/campus, but it can provide a general rule of thumb. There are recommendations within this report that could be used to update the FEPG especially as it concerns various room use classifications. One such recommendation is to give internal suite circulation its own room use code within the different room series such as research laboratories, office, and vivaria, so that it can be easily removed as assignable square footage. While it is important to track internal suite circulation for indirect cost recovery purposes for research, space allocations cannot be robust enough to encompass an outcome of design efficiency or building limitations. Another is the utilization targets and the recommended classroom net assignable square feet (NASF) per seat. The recommendations here could replace the HECB and FEPG targets. Many of the space allocations recommended in this study are at a higher level than the FEPG space guidelines meaning that they lack specificity to replace the FEPG guidelines holistically. That said, the FEPG guidelines are now 25 years old; how an institution and the people it serves use space today is different from 25 years ago. The quantity of space required to deliver academic programs has increased due to pedagogical changes, libraries have evolved, and how students use space is different due to technology. A more in‐depth review of the FEPG guidelines is warranted. Space use classifications should also be changing. That said, there is not a federal initiative to do so. Therefore, if the space classifications change then the ability to compare to other institutions outside the state of Washington will diminish. KEY FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED THE STUDY The colleges/campuses were classified based on type and size of college/campus. This was critical in reviewing space amounts per college/campus type. There is a direct correlation between student density and scale of campus. Examining mission and academic program mix in conjunction with student density and scale, the space requirements for each type of college or campus start to vary. The college/campus classifications created for this study are: . Community Colleges under 3,000 FTE (Range in Enrollment from 1,013 FTE to 2,908 FTE) . Community Colleges over 3,000 FTE (Range in Enrollment from 3,265 FTE to 8,252 FTE) . Technical Colleges (Range in Enrollment from 1,740 FTE to 2,902 FTE) 2 Office of Financial Management 2019 Higher Education Facility Study . Four Year (6,000 FTE and Under) (Range in Enrollment from 212 FTE to 5,561 FTE) . Four Year Comprehensive (Range in Enrollment from 10,895 FTE to 15,051 FTE) . Major Research Institutions (Range in Enrollment from 20,277 FTE to 48,941 FTE) Figure 1 Distribution of Existing Non‐Residential Space between College/Campus Classifications CCs 3K FTE and Under 43% 20% 7% 27% 4% CCs Over 3K FTE 48% 22% 5% 21% 5% Technical College 70% 14% 3% 9% 3% 4 Yr Under 6K FTE 29% 7% 28% 8% 20% 8% Comprehensive 27% 4% 27% 9% 26% 7% Major Research 13% 20% 28% 8% 25% 6% Total NASF 28% 10% 25% 7% 23% 6% Instructional Space Research Space Offices Library + Study Space All Other Non-Residential Space Support Space Note: Not all space was included in the analyses. Residential space, hospital space, and leased space were not included. The additional factor that impacted space allocations were high space demand programs (HSDP). These programs include Agriculture, Engineering, Industrial + Vocational Programs, and Veterinary Medicine. Programs in these disciplines can have a very large impact on space. OVERARCHING SPACE CATEGORIES The space categories used in this study are consistent with the FEPG and have been grouped as follows: . Instructional Space – classrooms, class labs, and open labs; while each one is analyzed separately, they are all calculated together on the same form. Research Space – research labs and vivaria space. Offices Space – offices, office service, and conference room space. Library + Study/Collaboration Space – this includes study spaces within the formal context of a library as well as collaboration and informal learning spaces outside the library. All Other Non‐Residential Space – all other spaces not specifically covered in these definitions plus intercollegiate athletics, medical clinics, animal quarters and health care; and greenhouse space used for extensive research. Executive Summary 3 . Support/Physical Plant Space – includes most support space except central computer and telecommunications and unit storage space. KEY FINDINGS The following figures and table summarize the space findings. While a total line is provided, it masks inequities between the colleges/campuses. Of particular note: . There is a significant need for research space, mainly at UW Seattle. There is a statewide need for Library + Study Space, namely collaboration space that is decentralized throughout the college/campus supporting active learning pedagogies. Classroom space shows a significant need reflecting the need to increase the space per student seat and not necessarily the number of classrooms.