EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT OCTOBER 2012

Transcription

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT OCTOBER 2012 PREPARED BY: JONATHAN C. THOMAS, PE DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ONE: SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1.1 Introduction Summary of Findings... 2 A. CRV and FCNI Definition and Utilization... 3 B. Analysis of Building Conditions... 3 C. Analysis of System Codes... 4 D. Analysis of Project Classifications... 6 E. Analysis of Priority Classifications Conclusions and Recommendations for Facility Improvement Additional Considerations... 9 SECTION TWO: FCA DATA AND COMPARISONS Figure 2.1 Detailed Facility Inventory Figure 2.2 Detailed Project Totals Matrix Figure 2.3 ISES Client History and FCNI Comparison Table and Charts Figure 2.4 System Code Project Cost Distribution Chart Figure 2.5 Project Classification Project Cost Distribution Chart Figure 2.6 Priority Class Project Cost Distribution Chart Figure 2.7 Summary of FCNI and Project Cost by Facility Figure 2.8 Summary of Average Age Figure 2.9 Summary of Facility Use Types Figure 2.10 Life Cycle Model Expenditure Projections Figure 2.11 Geographical FCNI Range Map... 22

3 SECTION ONE SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1.1 Introduction Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) is the country s largest historically black university by enrollment. It is the only historically black university in the State University System of Florida. FAMU is prominently located on the highest hill in Tallahassee, Florida. The university was originally founded as the State Normal College for Colored Students in Around 1891, the College moved to its current location, and in the 1920s it experienced growth in programs and physical plant. In 1953, the College was elevated to university status and became FAMU. From this point and into the early 1970s, FAMU experienced robust growth in programs and physical plant. Growth tapered off in the 1970s. However, there was a resurgence of physical plant expansion in the 1980s, which continued through the 2000s. Currently, the FAMU Tallahassee Campus spans 420 acres and consists of 132 buildings. A portion of the campus is listed on the United States National Register of Historic Places as the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College Historic District. This district represents the majority of the campus at 370 acres. In May of 2012, FAMU Plant Operations engaged in a facilities capital planning effort with ISES Corporation. Major Education and General (E&G) buildings located at the main campus were included in this study. The College of Law building in Orlando, FL was excluded from this study. Housing, auxiliary, and athletics facilities were not included in the study. Utilities generation and transmission assets were also not included in this assessment. The following observations and conclusions are based on a thorough of 40 major E&G assets by ISES Corporation, and represent the evaluation of 1.4 million gross square feet. The breakdown of general building usage of the assessed facilities is as follows: Building Use Distribution GSF % Classroom / Academic 21 Gymnasium / Athletics 3 Laboratory 18 Library 9 Office / Administration 47 Shops and Trades 2 1

4 The FCA process was supervised by Kendall D. Jones, Director of Physical Plant for FAMU Plant Operations. The analysis was directed by Jonathan C. Thomas, PE, Director of Special Operations, ISES Corporation. Survey team members consisting of architectural and engineering inspectors collected, evaluated, and compiled the data for the study. 1.2 Summary of Findings The Facility Condition Needs Index (FCNI) provides a relative measure for the objective comparison of building condition. The index is a simple calculation, derived by dividing total project costs (for the total ten-year window covered by the FCA) by the total Current Replacement Value (CRV). When applying the index as an evaluation tool, the lower the number, the better the facility condition. It should also be noted that this is an index, not a percentage. It can, and often does in the case of historic facilities, exceed The CRV represents the cost to replace an existing building with one of similar use type and size on the same site. This includes demolition, site preparation, professional fees, and construction costs. There are two main methods of applying the FCNI in analyzing the data derived from an FCA. The first method involves looking at individual facilities. When applying it to a single facility, the lower the FCNI, the better. In terms of assessing where a facility falls within a range of conditions, the following standards can be applied. Individual Building FCNI Range Condition Description Excellent condition, typically new construction Good condition, renovations occur on schedule Fair condition, in need of normal renovation Below average condition, major renovation required Poor condition, total renovation indicated 0.60 and above Complete facility replacement indicated The above ranges represent averages based upon ISES Corporation s experience extending over 8,500 facilities and more than one billion gross square feet, and associated infrastructure evaluations. The reader is cautioned, however, to examine each facility independently for mitigating factors (i.e., historic structures, temporary structures, facilities with abnormally low replacement costs, such as warehouses, etc.). 2

5 Another application for the FCNI is for comparing groups of facilities to other groupings. Comparisons in this vein do not yield hard data, but rather form the basis of analysis for comparing the overall state of facilities to another comparable grouping. Figure 2.3 of this document provides a listing of relevant ISES Corporation historical data of other institutions for which we have provided FCA services. A. Analysis of Overall Campus Conditions The FCA process for FAMU culminated in a database of deficiencies that need to be addressed over the next ten years. For the 40 buildings in the study that were evaluated during the facility condition assessment (FCA) effort, ISES identified almost $112 million dollars in project recommendations for over the next ten years. When compared to the $484 million dollar replacement value for the facilities in the study, the subsequent FCNI equals This FCNI figure is lower than the mean of 0.29 typically experienced by ISES Corporation. This indicates that the buildings within this FCA study are in better than average condition. The FCNI for the campus is in the top 24 percentile as displayed in Figure The FCNI is within the normal range of expectation. With regards to age, FAMU is within the youngest 17 percentile of the sample set. For a complete analysis, it is necessary to look at individual components and classifications and then compare them to the mean. B. Analysis of Building Conditions The FCNI Report Cumulative in Subsection 2.1 outlines the conditions of the individual facilities by asset number. If all facilities in the list carried equal weight with regards to campus master plan and University mission, one part of a prudent approach would be to apply funding in the order of the buildings on that list. The original buildings in the Deve Research School (DRS) exhibit the worst conditions on campus. The following table outlines the twelve buildings with the highest FCNIs. BLDG CODE BUILDING NAME BLDG USE YEAR BUILT GSF CRV TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 0064 OLD DRS 64 LB ,560 $6,873,000 $3,539, OLD DRS 66 CL ,862 $2,964,000 $1,376, OLD DRS 61 OF ,400 $429,000 $191, OLD DRS 65 CL ,832 $933,000 $405, PERRY SOUTH OF ,893 $22,042,000 $8,580, LS BARTLEY WOMENS ATHLETIC OF ,696 $2,114,000 $819, COMPLEX 0561 PAIGE NORTH OF ,551 $6,568,000 $2,487, BENJAMIN BANNEKER-A CL ,604 $9,081,000 $3,429, BENJAMIN BANNEKER-B CL ,512 $11,991,000 $4,456, DYSON PHARMACY BUILDING LB ,500 $27,141,000 $9,473, GAITHER OFFICE AND OF ,903 $9,123,000 $3,107, CLASSROOM 0068 FOSTER-TANNER MUSIC CENTER OF ,598 $10,812,000 $3,676, FCNI 3

6 For example, a building-level approach could yield the potential strategy that the four original DRS structures are candidates for demolition. This is due to the fact that their needs represent around half of their total replacement value. Raze and replace or comprehensive gut and renovation within the next ten years will likely be more economically favorable options than piecemeal renewal over the next ten years. Although in theory this approach seems prudent, it doesn t really hold true in reality. There are factors to consider such as academics, research funding, donor funding, campus appearance, campus politics, etc. ISES encourages and can assist FAMU in developing a priority system for the buildings. This priority system can be incorporated into the reporting processes of the ISES Asset Management System (AMS) and can allow for more intelligent information. This priority system can also be applied externally of the AMS, if preferred. C. Analysis of System Codes Another potential strategy for capital planning is to analyze common building systems for needs. The table below summarizes system project backlog by weight of total backlog. This information was derived from a review of the data in subsections 2.2 and 2.4. Data representing ISES client history statistics has been included for comparative purposes. Note that the basis for the qualitative judgments in the following analyses is based on statistical metrics. If a proportion is between 0.5 and 0.9 standard deviations away from the mean, it is regarded as being close to out of range. If a proportion is between 1.0 and 1.9 standard deviations away from the mean, it is regarded as being out of range. If proportion is 2.0 standard deviations away or higher, it is regarded as being considerably, or significantly, out of range. AC EL ES FS HE HV IS PL SI VT ALL NUMBERS IN PERCENTAGES FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY ISES Historical Average (AC-Handicapped Accessibility, EL-Electrical, ES-Exterior Structure, FS-Fire / Life Safety, HE-Health, HV-HVAC, IS-Interior Finishes / Systems, PL- Plumbing, SI-Site, VT-Vertical Transportation) Accessibility projects are designed as such to eliminate barriers to disabled individuals and are typically relatively low-cost initiatives. These projects comprise 1.6 percent of the project backlog. Compared with a typical 4 percent of the project backlog, FAMU appears to be in a relatively solid position with regards to 4

7 having accessible facilities. Over the entire portfolio, interior amenity upgrades to include drinking fountains, kitchenettes, service counters, etc. and stair safety upgrades are the most prevalent projects. Interior door hardware projects are the next most frequent recommendations. The electrical project backlog, at 15.9 percent, is higher than the mean and close to being out of range. This is consistent with the HVAC project backlog proportion which will be explained later in this section of the report. The most frequently occurring electrical projects, at approximately 93 percent of the buildings, are interior lighting upgrades. It is also notable that approximately 50 percent of the facilities are candidates for full power distribution system renovations within the next ten years. Exterior structure projects are concerned with exterior envelope systems primarily consisting of roofs, exterior walls and finishes, and fenestrations. The proportion of these projects is 6.2 percent, which is lower than expected as well as being out of range from the mean. There are 23 roofing projects recommended, which equates to approximately 58 percent of the portfolio. The next most prevalent projects are related to window replacements and occur at a rate of approximately 38 percent in the buildings. Fire and life safety projects comprise 7.4 percent of the project backlog, which is in line with the expected value. The most frequently occurring fire life safety projects are fire alarm system replacements and installations. These occur at a rate of 83 percent of the buildings. Fire alarm systems are typically recommended for replacement at a minimum of fifteen years regardless of component condition. Other aspects, such as technological obsolescence, factor into such recommendations. Sprinkler system improvements, at a rate of 65 percent, are the next most frequently occurring fire and life safety project recommendations. Health related project recommendations within the FAMU portfolio are low relative to the sample set at 0.1 percent. In fact, there is only one related project recommendation. Health projects typically revolve around kitchen or laboratory cold box equipment and, in some cases, abatement of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). In most cases, abatement of ACM is included in the project related to the system that has ACM applied. The one health-related project in the backlog pertains to food service cold boxes in the Old DRS 66 building. Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) projects comprise 40.9 percent of the backlog, which is above the sample set average of 33.9 percent. It is also close to out of range from the mean. HVAC 5

8 projects are typically the most expensive project per square foot. Comprehensive HVAC system renovations are recommended for approximately 65 percent of the facilities. The remainder of the projects are for piecemeal upgrades. Interior finish and system projects comprise 15.9 percent of the project backlog, which is lower but within range of the expected proportion of 17.0 percent. The most frequently occurring interior finish and system projects are related to the interior floor, wall, and ceiling finishes. Costly interior door upgrades are recommended in approximately 53 percent of the facilities. The next most prevalent interior finish and system projects are finished-based, as opposed to accessibility-based, restroom upgrades at a rate of 43 percent. Plumbing system projects comprise 8.2 percent of the project backlog, which is lower than the expected 9 percent but within range. The most prevalent plumbing projects within the backlog involve supply and drain piping networks at a rate of 63 percent each. The next most prevalent plumbing projects include water heating equipment replacements and occur at a rate of 38 percent. Site projects make up less than 1 percent of the project backlog and are in line with the expected value. The most prevalent site projects are paving-related. These projects occur at a rate of 40 percent of the buildings. There are two buildings with landscaping upgrade recommendations that make up the remainder of the site project backlog. Vertical transportation projects generally pertain to elevators, escalators, and dumb waiters. All of these projects in the FAMU backlog pertain to passenger or freight elevators. At 2.8 percent, the proportion of vertical transportation projects is higher and out of range of the expected 1.1 percent proportion. Reinvestment in the elevators across the campus should be considered. D. Analysis of Project Classifications The ISES project classifications can indicate the severity of the recommendations within the project backlog. Three project classifications have been applied as follows: A. Plant / Program Adaption: Expenditures required to adapt the physical plant to the evolving needs of the institution and to changing codes or standards. These are expenditures beyond normal maintenance. Examples include compliance with changing codes (e.g. accessibility), facility alterations 6

9 required by changed teaching or research methods, and improvements occasioned by the adoption of modern technology (e.g., the use of personal computer networks). B. Deferred Maintenance: Refers to expenditures for repairs which were not accomplished as a part of normal maintenance or capital repair which have accumulated to the point that facility deterioration is evident and could impair the proper functioning of the facility. Costs estimated for deferred maintenance projects should include compliance with applicable codes, even if such compliance requires expenditures beyond those essential to affect the needed repairs. Deferred maintenance projects represent catch up expenses. C. Capital Renewal: A subset of regular or normal facility maintenance which refers to major repairs or the replacement / rebuilding of major facility components (e.g., roof replacement at the end of its normal useful life is capital repair; roof replacement several years after its normal useful life is deferred maintenance). Plant / Program Adaption Deferred Maintenance Capital Renewal ALL NUMBERS IN PERCENTAGES FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY ISES Historical Average FAMU has a lower than average Plant / Program Adaption need at 6.1 percent. This proportion is also out of range of the mean. Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal projects are typically inversely proportional. The ratio is typically three Capital Renewal need dollars to every two Deferred Maintenance need dollars. The FAMU project backlog is inconsistent with this proportion. The ratio is near one to one with Capital Renewal being slightly higher. Deferred Maintenance projects are above the mean and close to being out of range. The Capital Renewal projects are below the mean but within range. E. Analysis of Priority Classifications Analysis of the project priority classes yields data regarding the urgency of the project backlog. The following table identifies the priority classes in which the projects were placed. The priority classes are time based as indicated in the table. Priority Class 1 houses projects that are recommended to be completed on an immediate basis. Priority Class 2 contains projects that are recommended to be completed within Year 1. Since these projects typically represent a small part of the total project backlog, they have been combined into the Year 1 category. 7

10 Priority 1 and 2 (Year 1) Priority 3 (Years 2-5) Priority 4 (Years 6-10) ALL NUMBERS IN PERCENTAGES FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY ISES Historical Average The analyses of the priority classes and project classifications typically yield corresponding inferences. Priorities 1 and 2 house a high proportion of Plant / Program Adaption projects as well as Deferred Maintenance. Priority 3 houses a combination of all project classifications. Priority 4 houses mostly Capital Renewal projects since these are recommended on the basis of statistical projections. Deferred Maintenance and Plant / Program Adaption projects, by typical definition, are more urgent than Priority 4 allows. The Priority 1 and Priority 2 proportion comprises 7.9 percent of the FAMU project backlog. This is close to out of range of and below the 15.4 percent mean. This statistic is in-line with the proportion of Plant Adaption projects being below and out of range of the mean. Similar to the Capital Renewal and Deferred Maintenance relationship, Priority 3 and Priority 4 projects are also inversely proportional. There are typically three Priority 3 dollars to every Priority 4 dollar. In the case of the FAMU project backlog, there are two Priority 3 dollars to every Priority 4 dollar. The Priority 3 project backlog proportion is lower than the mean but within range. The Priority 4 backlog proportion is higher than the mean and out of range. This indicates more dollars than normal are needed towards the end of the ten-year assessment scope and are, thus, less critical needs. 1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations for Facility Improvement The preceding sections of this report, supported by the graphs and charts contained in Section 2, illustrate that the current overall condition of the FAMU facilities is relatively average. There are several current and specific needs on campus. At the building level, there are four buildings with FCNIs of 0.40 or higher. A handful of other buildings are getting close to that condition. From a building perspective, the facilities with the highest FCNIs are candidates for renewal funding or other methods of management. With regards to FCNI, the most effective method of keeping it down is to holistically reinvest in existing facilities. This means either razing and rebuilding or gut and renovating them. If done correctly, such project work will also make maintenance organizations more effective. Note that this new construction will have a positive effect on the FCNI only if existing buildings are replaced with new. If new structures 8

11 are built but the older facilities are kept in service, any existing FCNI problems will be exacerbated. In addition, if the maintenance staff is not expanded in the event of adding incremental square footage to the portfolio, the FCNI issues will become more difficult to manage. The current project backlog consists of a high amount of projects that are meant to remedy current needs. There is a large proportion of projects which can be justified for funding today. However, there are fewer projects needed in Year 1 and more projects needed in Years 6-10 than is typical and FAMU Plant Operations has time to plan and fund these projects. From a system perspective, campus elevators represent an opportunity for near-term funding. Campuswide HVAC and electrical projects should also be considered as one of the first steps in developing a capital plan. Although there is a relatively low proportion of accessibility-based project recommendations, a prudent strategy is to fund these projects. Accessibility projects are typically relatively inexpensive. The benefit of completing them includes reduced liability to FAMU and improved building user safety and experience. In addition, even though there is not an inordinately high proportion of fire and life safety projects recommended, investment in these projects should be considered. These systems are also relatively inexpensive but yield immeasurable gains in reduction of University liability and user safety. If it is impossible to fully gut and renovate or raze and replace a facility, consider bundling ISES projects intelligently. For example, if an expensive HVAC system renewal project is justified and funded, consider undertaking any exterior envelope projects in concert with it. Replacing roofs, windows, and exterior doors will produce maximum energy savings, which will allow for as short a payback period as possible. For economies of scale, electrical and plumbing projects could also be combined. 1.4 Financial Modeling The ISES Asset Management System (AMS) software and database application features a funding modeling tool. Utilizing this tool, it was calculated that, in order for FAMU to maintain the current FCNI of 0.23, $7.7 million will have to be reinvested annually. This equates to 1.60 percent of plant value on an annual basis. Note that this figure is an annuity and does account for 3 percent inflation. The model also incorporates a 1 percent portfolio growth rate (the rate at which square footage is added), and a 1.5 percent plant deterioration rate (the rate at which new capital projects crop up). 9

12 If the reinvestment rate is lower than 1.60 percent of plant value, then the FCNI at the end of the tenth year will be higher than it was in the first. For instance, if 1 percent of plant value or $4.8 million is reinvested annually, then the resultant FCNI is estimated to be Conversely, if 2.5 percent of plant value, or $12.0 million, is reinvested annually, then the resultant FCNI is estimated to be Note that this model takes into account all money that makes it to the facility, which includes funding from all sources such as annual Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal funding, major renovation funding, donor funding, program-related grant funding, etc. which provides for space renewal, etc. 10

13 SECTION TWO FCA DATA AND COMPARISONS Figure 2.1 BLDG CODE NAME Detailed Facility Inventory BLDG USE YEAR BUILT GSF CRV TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 0001 LEE HALL OF ,052 $15,994,000 $5,370, JACKSON DAVIS HALL OF ,473 $5,496,000 $1,615, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND CL ,260 $16,220,000 $4,533, INDUSTRY SOUTH 0007 CARNEGIE CENTER OF ,125 $7,345,000 $536, WARE-RHANEY LB ,576 $36,494,000 $4,476, GEORGE W CONOLY GREENHOUSE OF ,697 $2,000,000 $422, SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE OF ,526 $34,475,000 $4,573, SWIMMING POOL LOCKER HOUSE GM ,455 $5,346,000 $1,506, GAITHER GYMNASIUM COMPLEX GM ,730 $8,122,000 $1,545, GAITHER OFFICE AND CLASSROOM OF ,903 $9,123,000 $3,107, LS BARTLEY WOMENS ATHLETIC OF ,696 $2,114,000 $819, COMPLEX 0036 SBI-WEST/NORTH CL ,386 $16,248,000 $1,372, SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM OF ,500 $34,477,000 $736, COUNSELING CENTER OF ,985 $1,528,000 $391, COLEMAN LIBRARY LY ,445 $43,253,000 $8,578, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND CL ,000 $12,842,000 $2,709, INDUSTRY EAST 0054 FOOTE-HILYER ADMIN CENTER OF ,251 $24,909,000 $7,452, FRED S HUMPHRIES (SCI RE) LB ,738 $38,049,000 $10,078, HOWARD HALL CL ,158 $7,048,000 $1,912, OLD DRS 61 OF ,400 $429,000 $191, OLD DRS 62 OF ,110 $1,330,000 $353, OLD DRS 63 CL ,953 $949,000 $306, OLD DRS 64 LB ,560 $6,873,000 $3,539, OLD DRS 65 CL ,832 $933,000 $405, OLD DRS 66 CL ,862 $2,964,000 $1,376, BENJAMIN L PERRY JR GENERAL CL ,409 $14,952,000 $3,331, CLASSROOM 0068 FOSTER-TANNER MUSIC CENTER OF ,598 $10,812,000 $3,676, FOSTER-TANNER CERAMIC CENTER OF ,178 $9,825,000 $2,034, FOSTER-TANNER ART CENTER OF ,936 $5,139,000 $1,078, FOSTER-TANNER BAND OF ,532 $6,210,000 $1,550, DYSON PHARMACY BUILDING LB ,500 $27,141,000 $9,473, PLANT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE - A 0081 PLANT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE - B FCNI OF ,771 $6,674,000 $1,170, OF ,003 $7,542,000 $816,

14 BLDG CODE NAME BLDG USE YEAR BUILT GSF CRV TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 0111 BENJAMIN BANNEKER-A CL ,604 $9,081,000 $3,429, BENJAMIN BANNEKER-B CL ,512 $11,991,000 $4,456, BENJAMIN BANNEKER-C CL ,724 $2,310,000 $737, BENJAMIN BANNEKER-D OF ,724 $2,360,000 $552, PAIGE NORTH OF ,551 $6,568,000 $2,487, PERRY SOUTH OF ,893 $22,042,000 $8,580, FCNI GRAND TOTALS 1,430,308 $483,613,000 $111,855,

15 Figure 2.2 Detailed Project Totals Matrix SYSTEM PRIORITIES DESCRIPTION TOTALS ACCESSIBILITY 0 23,400 1,369, ,850 $1,756,305 ELECTRICAL 0 1,716,961 10,283,446 5,835,391 $17,835,798 EXTERIOR 0 0 3,767,187 3,208,903 $6,976,090 FIRE/LIFE SAFETY 0 4,554,693 1,565,970 2,147,412 $8,268,074 HEALTH ,207 0 $79,207 HVAC 0 2,426,343 28,281,367 15,047,569 $45,755,279 INTERIOR FINISHES/SYS ,775,203 2,980,288 $17,755,491 PLUMBING 0 0 6,096,389 3,101,708 $9,198,097 SITE 0 0 1,061,814 0 $1,061,814 VERT. TRANSPORTATION 0 159,938 1,108,484 1,901,173 $3,169,595 TOTALS $0 $8,881,336 $68,388,121 $34,586,296 $111,855,752 CAPITAL RENEWAL $55,158,076 DEFERRED MAINTENANCE $49,928,718 PLANT/PROGRAM ADAPTION $6,768,958 CURRENT REPLACEMENT VALUE $483,613,000 FACILITY CONDITION NEEDS INDEX (FCNI) $55,158,076 GROSS SQUARE FEET 1,430,308 TOTAL PROJECT COST PER SQUARE FOOT $

16 Figure ISES Client History and FCNI Comparison Table Client Name Year of Inspection Sampling of ISES Client History List Facility Condition Needs Index Gross Square Feet Asset Count Average Year Built Avg. Age at Insp. Project Backlog per Square Foot Total Backlog FCNI Percent Rank University of Notre Dame ,096, $34.85 $317,037, % 67% Rice University ,037, $30.72 $277,629, % 12% North Carolina State University ,332, $30.24 $191,477,735 97% 97% University of Central Florida ,995, $50.90 $203,387,274 97% 0% University of North Florida ,720, $40.40 $69,498,230 93% 2% Vanderbilt University ,256, $47.45 $439,186,038 91% 82% Pepperdine University ,483, $61.59 $91,362,453 89% 4% Florida State University ,899, $58.31 $402,295,512 87% 17% University of Southern California ,195, $76.05 $1,079,541,148 85% 91% University of Iowa ,987, $83.99 $1,258,766,171 85% 82% Pennsylvania State University ,112, $81.62 $1,723,103,317 85% 53% Tulane University Uptown Campus ,018, $71.26 $286,356,411 80% 53% Washington University Main Campus ,304, $63.13 $461,126,432 78% 29% California Institute of Technology ,120, $69.66 $287,049,757 76% 89% Florida A&M University ,430, $78.20 $111,855,752 76% 17% Tulane University Downtown Campus (Health Sciences) ,151, $88.04 $189,423,119 72% 34% California State University Long Beach ,673, $56.34 $206,952,566 72% 21% University of Chicago ,880, $ $1,004,423,333 68% 82% University of Michigan ,782, $ $2,441,174,884 68% 85% San Francisco State University ,908, $70.16 $133,898,966 65% 72% University of Missouri Kansas City ,419, $79.96 $193,486,256 63% 52% University of West Georgia ,334, $45.01 $60,061,598 63% 67% Nevada System of Higher Education ,169, $ $869,951,341 63% 10% Portland Community College ,055, $93.49 $192,190,548 63% 6% East Carolina University ,003, $92.83 $371,660,376 55% 63% University of Rochester ,387, $91.78 $494,470,898 55% 58% Chapman University ,209, $48.30 $58,426,248 55% 8% University of Missouri Columbia ,993, $80.81 $645,928,221 50% 82% Portland State University ,062, $70.03 $284,495,209 50% 34% Valdosta State University , $46.06 $45,409,388 50% 52% University of Hawai i at Mānoa ,998, $ $538,771,415 50% 17% Morehouse College , $66.97 $56,583,054 42% 25% Rowan University ,940, $74.51 $144,619,873 42% 73% Kenyon College , $84.38 $69,612,041 38% 97% Oklahoma State University ,086, $ $343,450,807 38% 73% California State University Los Angeles ,908, $99.30 $189,533,235 34% 52% Princeton University ,188, $55.13 $120,630,439 33% 99% University of Connecticut ,758, $85.11 $1,000,773,188 33% 41% Texas A&M University ,451, $89.87 $1,568,245,670 33% 21% University of the Arts , $ $124,617,342 27% 100% Oakland University , $69.71 $31,310,078 27% 52% University of Massachusetts Lowell ,066, $ $452,572,591 23% 59% California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo , $77.06 $66,198,105 23% 34% University of Nebraska - Omaha , $76.81 $53,013,995 23% 25% University of Minnesota ,573, $99.41 $2,641,730,320 17% 84% University of California Irvine , $89.47 $30,082,075 17% 26% University of Missouri-St. Louis ,750, $ $270,494,377 14% 41% University of South Carolina ,780, $57.51 $504,990,688 12% 41% Pitzer College , $63.29 $17,746,437 10% 63% University of Miami - Coral Gables ,485, $89.45 $311,769,384 8% 58% George Washington University, The ,623, $82.16 $297,694,823 6% 75% University of Alabama ,509, $51.75 $285,113,705 4% 93% San Diego State University ,619, $ $170,118,528 4% 41% Miami University, Ohio ,527, $94.23 $143,963,945 0% 89% Averages ,473, $80.61 $441,208,563 Avg Year Built Percent Rank 14

17 FCNI FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY Figure Sampling of ISES Client History-FCNI vs. Campus Size Campus FCNI Comparison Showing Average Quadrants FCNI Florida A&M University Average Age/gsf Figure Sampling of ISES Client History-FCNI vs. Average Facility Age Campus FCNI Comparison Showing Trend Bands Florida A&M University Average Age/gsf 15

18 Figure 2.4 System Code Project Cost Distribution Chart 8.2% 0.9% 2.8% 1.6% 15.9% 15.9% 6.2% 7.4% 0.1% ACCESSIBILITY ELECTRICAL EXTERIOR FIRE/LIFE SAFETY HEALTH HVAC INTERIOR/FINISH SYS. PLUMBING SITE VERT. TRANSPORTATION 40.9% Figure 2.5 Project Classification Project Cost Distribution Chart 6.1% 49.3% Capital Renewal Deferred Maintenance 44.6% Plant Adaption 16

19 Figure 2.6 Priority Class Project Cost Distribution Chart 0.0% 7.9% 30.9% Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority % 17

20 Figure 2.7 Summary of FCNI and Project Cost by Facility BLDG BLDG YEAR TOTAL PROJECT NAME GSF CRV FCNI CODE USE BUILT COSTS FCNI > OLD DRS 64 LB ,560 $6,873,000 $3,539, FCNI 0.31 to BENJAMIN BANNEKER-C CL ,724 $2,310,000 $737, OLD DRS 63 CL ,953 $949,000 $306, LEE HALL OF ,052 $15,994,000 $5,370, FOSTER-TANNER MUSIC CENTER OF ,598 $10,812,000 $3,676, GAITHER OFFICE AND OF ,903 $9,123,000 $3,107, CLASSROOM 0074 DYSON PHARMACY BUILDING LB ,500 $27,141,000 $9,473, BENJAMIN BANNEKER-B CL ,512 $11,991,000 $4,456, BENJAMIN BANNEKER-A CL ,604 $9,081,000 $3,429, PAIGE NORTH OF ,551 $6,568,000 $2,487, LS BARTLEY WOMENS ATHLETIC OF ,696 $2,114,000 $819, COMPLEX 0562 PERRY SOUTH OF ,893 $22,042,000 $8,580, OLD DRS 65 CL ,832 $933,000 $405, OLD DRS 61 OF ,400 $429,000 $191, OLD DRS 66 CL ,862 $2,964,000 $1,376, FCNI 0.21 to FOSTER-TANNER CERAMIC OF ,178 $9,825,000 $2,034, CENTER 0070 FOSTER-TANNER ART CENTER OF ,936 $5,139,000 $1,078, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND CL ,000 $12,842,000 $2,709, INDUSTRY EAST 0012 GEORGE W CONOLY OF ,697 $2,000,000 $422, GREENHOUSE 0067 BENJAMIN L PERRY JR GENERAL CL ,409 $14,952,000 $3,331, CLASSROOM 0114 BENJAMIN BANNEKER-D OF ,724 $2,360,000 $552, FOSTER-TANNER BAND OF ,532 $6,210,000 $1,550, COUNSELING CENTER OF ,985 $1,528,000 $391, FRED S HUMPHRIES (SCI RE) LB ,738 $38,049,000 $10,078, OLD DRS 62 OF ,110 $1,330,000 $353, HOWARD HALL CL ,158 $7,048,000 $1,912, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND CL ,260 $16,220,000 $4,533, INDUSTRY SOUTH 0020 SWIMMING POOL LOCKER GM ,455 $5,346,000 $1,506, HOUSE 0002 JACKSON DAVIS HALL OF ,473 $5,496,000 $1,615, FOOTE-HILYER ADMIN CENTER OF ,251 $24,909,000 $7,452,

21 BLDG BLDG YEAR TOTAL PROJECT NAME GSF CRV FCNI CODE USE BUILT COSTS FCNI 0.11 to PLANT OPERATIONS AND OF ,003 $7,542,000 $816, MAINTENANCE - B 0009 WARE-RHANEY LB ,576 $36,494,000 $4,476, SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE OF ,526 $34,475,000 $4,573, PLANT OPERATIONS AND OF ,771 $6,674,000 $1,170, MAINTENANCE - A 0021 GAITHER GYMNASIUM COMPLEX GM ,730 $8,122,000 $1,545, COLEMAN LIBRARY LY ,445 $43,253,000 $8,578, FCNI 0.0 to SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM OF ,500 $34,477,000 $736, CARNEGIE CENTER OF ,125 $7,345,000 $536, SBI-WEST/NORTH CL ,386 $16,248,000 $1,372, PLANT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE - C ST ,700 $6,405,000 $568,

22 Figure 2.8 Summary of Average Age # OF % OF AVG. YEAR GSF FACILITIES GSF AGE Pre % 67, % 4, % 210, % 141, % 213, % 65, % 272, % 271, Present % 183,011 8 TOTALS 40 1,430, Figure 2.9 Summary of Facility Use Types FACILITY # OF % OF DESCRIPTION TYPE CODE FACILITIES GSF GSF CL Classroom / Academic 11 21% 294,700 GM Gymnasium / Athletic 2 3% 44,185 LB Laboratory 4 18% 262,374 LY Library 1 9% 129,445 OF Office / Administrative 21 47% 675,904 ST Shops / Trades 1 2% 23,700 TOTALS 40 1,430,308 20

23 Figure 2.10 Life Cycle Model Expenditure Projections All Buildings 50M 40M 30M 20M 10M 0M Future Year Average Annual Renewal Cost per Square Foot: $

24 Figure 2.11 Geographical FCNI Range Map 22

25 FCNI INDEX KEY <0.10, EXCELLENT CONDITION <0.20, GOOD CONDITION <0.30, FAIR CONDITION <0.50, BELOW AVERAGE <0.60, POOR CONDITION 0.601, REPLACEMENT INDICATED