State and local governments spend a considerable amount of funding on constructing and maintaining their buildings and other facilities, which are vital to the services they provide. Yet city and county facility managers seeking funds for repair and renewal projects often struggle to win public support.

One way facilities managers can successfully argue the need for those initiatives is to show how funding decisions, as well as the tradeoffs of different funding scenarios, have impacted facilities. However, such calculations are complex, because they take into account dynamic information about use, condition and repair history across many facilities. Worse, communities often lack up-to-date data about their buildings' conditions and cannot easily view that information while considering funding alternatives.

Even when assessing their facilities, many cities and counties do not use consistent and standard methods, which results in inadequate data to make decisions. For example, many communities still manage building data with a combination of spreadsheets and homegrown database applications. Those cities and counties would be unable to accurately create a comprehensive facility capital planning program because they could not address the full spectrum of facilities issues ranging from budgeting and financing to construction management, maintenance, space planning and property management.

To create effective multi-year capital allocation plans for facilities that address more than just short-term, daily operations, city and county managers must be able to answer several key questions:

• What inventory exists in the building portfolio?

• What is the existing physical condition of each building?

• What is the building used for?

• What investments need to be made?

• How should the investments be prioritized?

• How can a rational funding process be implemented?

The facility condition audit

Accurate information about current building conditions is the foundation for effective facilities maintenance and capital planning, and city and county managers should ensure that their current condition assessment methods are adequate for providing that information. A condition assessment audit is more than an inventory. It should take at least a cursory view of each building and plant, its age and location, condition, the dates and costs of recent repairs and its best use within a combined operation. Additionally, the audit should address the condition of key facility systems to estimate the overall costs of deferred maintenance and future renewal needs.

To help with the audit, facilities managers can use Facility Condition Index (FCI) benchmarking techniques to identify which buildings warrant more detailed examinations. The FCI measures the repair cost of a structure compared to its replacement value. Ranging from 0.00 to 1.00, the number provides a quantitative measurement of an asset's condition and is calculated by dividing the repair costs for an asset's deficiencies by its replacement cost. It can be used to compare a facility's conditions and value against others and to measure improvements or failures on one facility from year to year.

Detailed facility condition assessments analyze deferred maintenance issues, code compliance requirements and functional inadequacies. The assessment should document the architectural, mechanical and electrical systems' functionality, calculate costs required to address system deficiencies and forecast future facility conditions.

Facility managers need to evaluate their current condition indexes and then ask questions, such as: What condition should that building be in five, 10 or 15 years from now? What repairs will need to be made during that time to reach that goal? How much will that cost?

Central database is key

Detailed and accurate data about facilities' conditions is limited in value unless it can be readily analyzed and used to support maintenance and capital planning decisions at individual facilities and across a portfolio. One of the greatest challenges facing city and county managers in developing more comprehensive capital planning capabilities is the current disparity in data sources.

Using well-documented information coordinated through a central database provides an accurate total cost of ownership, which should translate into better, more informed decisions on building use and care. More importantly, armed with the costs of each building or facility, government managers can create compelling justifications for long-term management of the entire portfolio. They can more readily and accurately estimate when a particular system will need replacement, see the effect on the facility portfolio overall and anticipate future budget needs. And, they can develop clear, impartial arguments that support budgeting requests and guarantee greater return on the investment.

Using that information city and county managers can:

• determine the physical conditions of facilities and the suitability of the assets to support the institution's mission;

• accurately understand facility conditions and the costs of each repair and deferred maintenance project;

• pinpoint and prioritize facilities' requirements objectively, as well as summarize and report risks; and

• formulate optimal, multi-year capital allocation strategies, such as renovation versus new construction.

Using the FCI with the planning and budgeting scenarios to analyze facility information identifies priority repairs and deferred maintenance projects. Each cost for repair and renewal projects can be calculated to create a complete picture of both preventive and routine maintenance, as well as the projected costs for capital renewal over the next several years.

City and county managers then can bundle necessary improvements together and develop multi-year plans for maintenance projects and the capital needed. The project plans can be prioritized based on the need and the ultimate long-term impact on the overall community goals.

For example, renovating a sheriff's building may be more costly over the long term than building a new structure. The new facility may have higher upfront costs, but could provide operation savings in the future, delivering greater returns over time.

Being better informed about the nature and condition of every building is time consuming and more expensive than guessing, but using technology and established methods are well worth the effort. By executing a condition audit, integrating data and setting goals, city and county managers can develop effective facilities-related budgets and ultimately win the necessary public support to successfully execute short-term and long-term plans.

Ray Dufresne is vice president of consulting services for Boston-based VFA.

The payoff for good facility management

To efficiently manage government buildings and other facilities, managers need information about their use, condition and repair history. That information provides many benefits in the short and long term, including:

• Improves accountability to governing bodies and taxpayers. Details about the facilities are readily available to support budget decisions and track the results of the funding spent. Over time, that can produce increased confidence that tax dollars are being spent wisely, which can lead to additional funding.

• Avoids emergency repairs. When an emergency repair or major replacement is required, the cost can be much higher than for the same work performed in a planned project. Also, emergency failures can create problems where none previously existed, such as the roof leak that damages a facility's interior. Priority repairs can be established based on complete information on the building.

• Simplifies annual capital budget preparation. The current and historical facility information needed to create annual or other necessary reports is accessible, reducing the time it takes to assemble reports for capital budget requests.

• Reduces risk. Once identified in routine assessments, safety hazards — such as exposed wiring in loose exterior features — can be fixed, avoiding potentially large liabilities and excessive costs.

• Identifies opportunities to save money in operations by investing in capital improvements. Investments, such as replacing an energy inefficient boiler or relocating or redesigning a security checkpoint, can result in operational savings that can reap benefits year after year.

• Helps decide to renovate or build new. Life cycle costing analysis supported by data and models can take the decision beyond the initial cost. Long-term cost implications often lead to an entirely different conclusion that can save money over time.

• Avoids expensive infrastructure improvements to obsolete buildings. Without controls in place, it is possible, for instance, for one department to replace a building's roof that is torn down soon after because of functional considerations.

• Encourages bulk procurement. Consolidating the purchase of systems anticipated for replacement in a similar timeframe can lead to price breaks from manufacturers and/or installers.

• Prioritizes deferred maintenance backlog. Effectively addressing a deferred maintenance backlog is a key way to reduce financial exposure and vulnerability to waves of expiring assets. It also improves the quality of services supported by facilities and physical infrastructure.
  — Ray Dufresne

Assessing zoo facilities in Milwaukee

Facilities managers are moving toward standard assessment methods using newer technology that can collect, centralize and analyze facility and infrastructure information. For example, to help better manage its more than 800 buildings spread across 12 million square feet of space, the Milwaukee County Department of Administration initiated a facility condition assessment program in 1996 to update information on the condition of its properties, along with a preventive maintenance program for each building. The collected data was centrally housed in a system designed to allow the county to analyze trends and plan for long-term capital improvement. “Much of this information has been kept in static format, including paper reports, or in individual spreadsheets which make comparisons across properties difficult and cumbersome,” says Mike Zylka, the county's property management program manager.

As part of the project, Milwaukee County assessed the County Zoo's assets. Woven throughout a 200-acre wooded lot that has housed the zoo since 1958, are extensive fences, roadways, sidewalks and an aging building portfolio, all of which are maintained by the county. Past facility condition audits of the zoo had captured data in static reports, and there was no centralized system for tracking and prioritizing capital repair and renewal projects.

In addition to assessing its infrastructure's condition throughout the year, the zoo needed to plan for its utility systems' capacity to meet the demands from future improvements and growth. In the spring of 2002, the county purchased a software system to assess the condition of all administrative, exhibit and support buildings, as well as the utility distribution system. Using that information, the county created a centralized inventory of the zoo buildings, including information on their conditions and cost liabilities, which indicated a significant deferred maintenance backlog. As a result, the county prioritized the deficiencies and recommended improvements. The assessment data also was used to analyze future energy demands and identify options to support the zoological gardens' growth.

Along with the condition assessment, Milwaukee County developed an annual preventive maintenance program, which identified various tasks, frequencies of repair and labor hours. Facility managers now are able to identify and prioritize major maintenance and capital improvement requirements using a standard format and up-to-date building improvement information. The program also helps the zoo justify personnel and service contract requirements.

Now, the county can create its priorities — with safety requirements being first, followed by function, performance and aesthetics — and allocate its funds accordingly. The information also has formed the foundation for its five-year capital improvement plans.
— Ray Dufresne