|
Connecticut Department of Higher Education |
|
Hartford, CT |
|
 |
|
The Connecticut Department of Higher Education (DHE) biennially presents a system-wide capital budget request to the Board of Governors and Legislature. Faced with annual deferred maintenance, code compliance and infrastructure improvements funding totaling from $30 to $40 million – roughly 15 percent of the annual capital budget – the department and Connecticut’s public institutions were struggling to create a plan for optimal facilities budget allocation to support the long-term use and value of more than 500 buildings covering approximately 22 million gross square feet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The DHE, working in collaboration with its public colleges and universities, was faced with the challenges of:
|
|
|
|
 |
Gathering consistent, objective data on the various types of backlogged maintenance projects and estimating the amount of funding required for the necessary improvements.
|
|
|
Objectively and accurately pinpointing and prioritizing facilities requirements, as well as summarizing and reporting the data for strong, funding recommendations to the Board and state legislature
|
|
|
Ensuring that available resources are effectively allocated so that facilities are maintained and operated in top-notch condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The department launched its Higher Education Asset Protection Program and selected Southern Connecticut State University, 11 of Connecticut's community colleges and Charter Oak State College to participate in Phase I of the program
|
|
|
|
|
DHE turned to VFA to conduct a Facility Condition Assessment of Phase I facilities (more than four million square feet of space, totaling 67 buildings, two parking garages and 37 parking lots).
|
|
|
VFA solution included its Web-based enterprise software application, VFA.facility®, which enables the DHE to gather and maintain a repository of detailed building information across the 15 campuses. |
|
|
VFA also participated in a joint presentation with the department to the Board of Governors for Higher Education regarding the project findings and facility funding recommendations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The DHE and individual institutions gained a centralized system to classify and report deficiencies, explore potential funding scenarios and track project benchmarks.
|
|
|
The data gathered during the FCA provided the DHE and Phase I institutions with accurate and credible cost estimates and a clearly defined action plan for allocating resources based on identified priorities. DHE is able to define how projects are bundled and provide justifiable reasons for capital planning decisions and associated funding requests.
|
|
|
Employing this strategic capital planning and reinvestment approach, the institutions are able to collaborate with the DHE to develop a well-planned course of action for repair and renewal projects that will improve buildings, reduce further deterioration of building components, comply with building and safety codes and ensure that all facilities are structurally and mechanically sound.
|
|
|
|
|
