S T AT E O F O R E G O N

10-Year Capital Strategic Plan FrameworkD E P A R T M E N T O F A D M I N I S T R AT I V E S E R V I C E S

C H I E F F I N A N C I A L O F F I C EF A C I L I T Y P L A N I N G U N I T

February 2020

Table of Contents

I . A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

I I . E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

I I I . B A C K G R O U N D A N D I N T R O D U C T I O N

I V. P O R T F O L I O

V. P L A N N I N G F A C T O R S

V I . P E R F O R M A N C E M E A S U R E S A N D G U I D E L I N E P L A N S

V I I . I N T E G R AT E D P L A N N I N G T O O L S

V I I I . P R O J E C T P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

I X . A G E N C Y 1 0 -Y E A R P L A N S

X . P L A N C O N C L U S I O N S

X I . E X H I B I T S

A. FACILITIES PLANNING UNIT TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY

2

Acknowledgements

D E P A R T M E N T O F A D M I N I S T R AT I V E S E R V I C E S ( D A S )

KATY COBA, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND DAS DIRECTOR

GEORGE NAUGHTON, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

JEAN GABRIEL, CAPITAL FINANCE MANAGER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICE

ALICE WIEWEL, STATE ARCHITECT, FACILITY PLANNING UNIT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICE

C A P I T A L P R O J E C T S A D V I S O R Y B O A R D ( C P A B )

D E P A R T M E N T O F G E O L O G Y A N D M I N E R A L I N D U S T R I E S ( D O G A M I )

3

Executive Summary

There are over 5,100 facilities statewide that support programs and services delivered by state agencies. Our facilities range dramatically in size, use, and complexity depend-ing on the occupying agency. And while much of our state portfolio is located in the capital city of Salem, facilities are dispersed across every part of the state to meet the needs of Oregonians.

O V E R V I E WThe Facility Planning Unit (FPU) was established in 2014 to provide decision support to the state’s leadership through comprehensive information and analysis of state agency real estate assets on a statewide basis. This work allows the state’s leadership to un-derstand investment decisions within a relevant context. FPU developed the data-driv-en planning program to support the statewide facility planning process codified in ORS 276.227. This integrated planning program calls data from a variety of sources to admin-ister the following program functions:

• Statewide Inventory – the system of record for state-owned real estate assets.

• Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) Program – professional independent third-party field assessments of facility condition and prioritized work in a decision support system.

• Seismic and Natural Hazard Assessment Program – engineering-grade screen-ing for seismic and flood risks aligned with Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) methodologies including the development of a benefit cost analysis tool to assist agencies in prioritizing risk, value and cost.

• Space Efficiency Program – establishment of new space guidelines for office uses that reflect modern flexible work modalities and more effective and efficient space utilization. The work includes the development of space planning and usage opti-mization tools.

• Consistent Agency Plan Reports – report redesign assists the professional and robust Capital Planning Advisory Board (CPAB) and forms the basis of the Agency Requested Budget (ARB) submission to the Governor.

• Prioritization Process – provide information and support to assist the Governor in the budget development process.

P L A N S U M M A R Y A N D R E C O M M E N D AT I O N SOver the next 10 years, the state will invest in facility deferred maintenance and capital renewal, facility replacements and modernizations, and (significantly) seismic safety. Growth is expected to be modest and best accommodated through efficient building and interior design, in addition to replacing aging and poorly-performing facilities. This strategy will reduce the overall deferred maintenance backlog while increasing func-tionality, efficiency and safety. The following are FPU’s key 10-year plan focus areas:

• Analyzing the impacts of critical funding support, such as SB 1067, which provides a systematic approach to tackling deferred maintenance and capital renewal

• Evaluating increased investment in modernizations and building replacements

• Advancing facility seismic and natural hazard resilience, and assisting agencies though integrated planning exercises

• Advancing more thoughtful, place-based agency planning to enhance and support communities and the built environment through integrated data-analysis strate-gies

P R O G R A M C O N T I N U I T YAssessment activity is a required, continual effort that ensures the fit and reliability of facilities that support the ongoing work of State government. Dating back to the in-ception of the program in 2014, assessments present an integral and irreducible core function of Facilities Planning that result in the safeguarding of investment in public facilities infrastructure.

Consistent funding of the program is needed to close data gaps and ensure that the fa-cility condition and seismic assessment programs continue. Ideally, facilities should be assessed every six years to ensure reliable data, and to establish a longitudinal record. Currently, seven agencies remain to be assessed to establish their baseline data, and to be folded into the state’s facilities record. This record will gain strength as it grows, offering decision makers a more robust data set from which to draw conclusions that support efforts to make complex decisions. Also, this data forms a reliable picture of the state’s facility portfolio which can be utilized by other entities such as Debt Policy Advisory Committee and Risk Management.

4

Background and Introduction

The Oregon Legislature established the Facility Planning Unit during the 2013-15 legisla-tive session. Prior to this, centrally-reported facility planning and condition information was coordinated through DAS Enterprise Asset Management, and relied on agency-pro-vided information to fulfill statutory reporting and plan development requirements out-lined in ORS 276.227. In contrast, FPU was established as a unit of the Capital Finance and Planning section of the Chief Financial Office at DAS, with the purpose of ensuring more strategic capital planning and investment decisions. FPU’s role, under direction from the Chief Financial Officer, and, ultimately, the DAS Director, is to provide agencies with information and facility planning best practices. The information FPU administers through the statewide planning process is used to inform the Governor’s Recommend-ed Budget (GRB), and to support legislative decisions.

P L A N N I N G P R O C E S SORS 276.227 requires DAS to establish a statewide planning process to evaluate the needs of the state’s facilities, provide information on the condition of such facilities, establish guidelines for acquiring and maintaining facilities, and provide financing and budgeting strategies to best support facility needs. The statewide planning process is limited to the 20 executive branch agencies that have statutory authority to own real property. Legislative and judicial branch facilities, as well as those operated by Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC), are outside of FPU purview, and thus not reflected in this plan.

FPU ensures the statewide capital planning process effectively evaluates the needs and conditions of state facilities in light of agency’s stated goals and objectives; establishes and implements guidelines and standards for acquiring, managing and maintaining state facilities; and provides financing and budgeting guidance to allocate resources to facility needs. This work includes establishing criteria for evaluating proposed state-owned facilities; maintaining the system-of-record database of state-owned facilities; and overseeing data collection, analysis, and benchmarking related to the utilization and stewardship of existing facilities.

O U R V I S I O N“To promote more efficient use of the state’s construction resources, to foster the pres-

ervation of buildings of historical, architectural or cultural significance and to enhance the social and economic environment within and surrounding state buildings. State buildings are to reflect the highest standards of the environmental design arts and are to contribute to the citizen’s image of accessibility and responsiveness of government.” (ORS 276.094)

P L A N G O A L S• Goal I: Assist the enterprise by providing information on facility condition, natural

hazard risks, financial impacts and other best practices. However, each agency is considered an expert in its own service delivery model, and therefore best-suited to determine facility functionality or obsolescence.

• Goal II: Assist agencies in developing integrated facility plans that reflect their unique role and business needs.

• Goal III: Provide the necessary base data on facility condition and needs, including seismic and other natural hazard risks.

• Goal IV: Guide/encourage agencies to consider/comply with community plans including DLCD planning guidelines, DOGAMI risk maps, and SHPO historic evalua-tions and procedures.

• Goal V: Deploy data-enriched, map-based information products to support agency leadership and inform elected officials.

G U I D I N G P R I N C I P L E SFacilities Planning Unit (FPU) established six core principles that guide the statewide enterprise of capital investment planning and project development. While these guiding principles are not specific project evaluation criteria, they are the underpinning of best practices in capital planning.

• Design for Quality - Good building design contributes to higher employee produc-tivity and better public service. Aspire for the highest feasible level of environmen-tal and architectural design.

• Steward our Investments - Public investments must be properly maintained to ensure safety and reduce long-term cost. Design high-performance buildings with the lowest total cost of ownership.

• Right-Size our Portfolio - Buildings have large environmental footprints, and are

5

costly to build, operate and maintain. Prioritize adaptive reuse of buildings and proj-ects that maximize efficiency and long-term utility.

• Contribute to the Whole - Our buildings serve key roles across the state and repre-sent sizable community investments. Consider how a project impacts the commu-nity and helps achieve statewide priorities.

• Convey our Identity - Our buildings represent the aspirations, integrity, and legacy of Oregonians. Ensure buildings contribute to an “image of accessibility and re-sponsiveness of government”.

• Be Resilient - We build for resilience using science, data and community wisdom to protect against and adapt to risks, thereby making people, communities and systems better prepared to withstand catastrophic events—both natural and man-made—and able to bounce back more quickly and emerge stronger from these shocks and stresses.

Portfolio

The State of Oregon has current and future capital needs related to maintaining aging, state-owned facilities (the mean age is 40 years). The state-owned facility portfolio, in-cluding higher education facilities, is approximately 39 million gross square feet (MGSF) located in over 5,100 separate buildings. State agencies are housed in 23.3 MGSF of this space in approximately 4,500 buildings and facilities valued at $7.1 billion. It leases an additional 5.3 million square feet in over 517 facilities at a monthly rent of $6.7 million.

State facilities are widely dispersed but highly concentrated. Located in every county in the state, with 55 percent of facilities located in Salem, Portland and Clackamas. The vast majority (38 percent) are located in Salem. A small percentage of facilities account for the majority of our GSF and current replacement value (CRV). Only facilities valued above $1 million in CRV are considered “major” facilities, and are the principal focus of FPU’s planning program. Although major facilities constitute around 15 percent of total facilities, they represent about 78 percent of the total GSF and almost 90 percent the portfolio’s value.

Facilities below the $1 million CRV threshold are considered “minor” facilities. In con-trast, minor facilities constitute roughly 85 percent of total portfolio buildings, yet rep-resenting roughly one-tenth of the total CRV. The vast majority of minor facilities are owned by a few natural resource agencies (ODF, ODFW, OPRD) and ODOT. Although relatively small in size and value, these facilities are often critical for delivering the spe-

cialized programs they are built for. As such, they are often located in less-accessible locations, and can require proportionally more effort to manage and maintain. There-fore, the planning process grants agencies flexibility to advocate for their maintenance and replacement when needed.

Planning Factors

State facility planning is driven by several key factors that reflect the mission-driven characteristics of state government agencies. In many cases, agencies are delivering services in facilities built to accommodate operational needs that have evolved over time. While in some instances, agency facilities may have inadequate capacity due to program growth or change over time; in other instances, growth is not a factor. Rather, these facilities are challenged by age and condition, and overall functionality to support evolving workplace modalities. The following are key planning factors FPU examines as part of its role in overseeing statewide facility planning.

A G E A N D C O N D I T I O NStatistically speaking, Oregon’s state facilities are relatively old and in varied condition. The average age in years is approximately 40. At this age, buildings require renewal or replacement to remain functional. Without this investment, an extensive backlog of maintenance issues can develop. For some agencies, this can become overwhelming. For instance, at over 5.5 MGSF, the Oregon Department of Correction (DOC) has the largest facility portfolio of all state agencies. Many of these critical facilities are very old and in poor condition, despite a rigorous program of maintenance within the context of limited resources. DOC’s deferred maintenance and capital renewal needs are currently assessed at $150 million, and without action are projected to reach nearly $300 million by 2028.

B U I L D I N G M O D E R N I Z AT I O NOver time, agencies may undergo changes in program delivery models that render their existing facilities as functionally obsolete—meaning, a loss of functional value because buildings or improvements do not provide the same or as efficient utility as a new struc-ture that would be built or designed in a new way. Building modernization projects align the need for more functional buildings with current program delivery, and may be an

6

effective vehicle for capital renewal and eliminating deferred maintenance backlogs.

S E I S M I C R I S K A N D R E M E D I AT I O NThe 2013 Oregon Resilience Plan identified major gaps between the current state of infrastructure and those needed to recover from a major Cascadia earthquake and tsunami disaster. However, Oregon is becoming more aware of the potential impacts of natural hazard risks on state facilities, and developing collaborative strategies for mitigating risk and ensuring business continuity in the event of a natural disaster. To this end, FPU has been advancing agency-level resilience planning through the facility condition assessment and statewide facility planning programs. Seismic and flood risk analyses have been completed for over 115 select DAS, OYA, and OLCC buildings. For the remaining eight assessed agencies, the FEMA Rapid Visual Screening portion of facility risk assessments are complete. The benefit-cost analysis, recommendations, and mitigation prioritization, require technical expertise to complete, and will follow as funding allows.

G R O W T HState employee growth has gone up and down by relatively small margins in the past 15 years. Between 2008 and 2017, state employee position count increased by 2.5 percent while the state population grew 4.9 percent. This is in keeping with the general obser-vation that employee growth is modest despite increasing percentages of older (over 65 years) and more diverse population. Facility growth in the same period has increased 11 percent. Through improvements in space quality and efficiency, we believe we can ac-commodate much of future growth without significantly increasing the overall footprint of the state portfolio in the long term. However, there will likely be an overall increase in gross square footage due to the needed development of interim “swing” space required to accommodate planned renovations and modernization work. Work can be accom-plished more swiftly and at less cost with the availability of dedicated swing space.

T A B L E I : S T AT E E M P L O Y E E P O S I T I O N S B Y B I E N N I U M ( 2 0 0 3 - 1 9 )

BIENNIUM 2003-05*1 2005-07*1 2007-09*1 2009-11*1 2011-13*1 2013-15*1 2015-171 2017-191 2019-212

Positions 37,689 37,984 39,386 40,754 39,659 40,264 40,732 41,533 43,038

Biennial Change Base 295 1,402 1,368 (1,095) 605 468 801 1,505

% Biennial Change Base 0.8% 3.7% 3.5% (2.7%) 1.5% 1.2% 2.0% 3.6%

*Biennial position counts do not include Oregon University System (OUS)/Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC)1Legislatively Adopted Budget (LAB)2Governor’s budget only

T A B L E I I : S T AT E - O W N E D F A C I L I T Y G S F B Y B I E N N I U M ( 2 0 0 3 - 1 9 )

BIENNIUM 2003-05 2005-07 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17 2017-19 2019-21

MGSF3 19.3 19.8 20.9 21.3 22.7 23.0 23.2 23.3 23.3

Biennial Growth Base 0.47 1.16 0.36 1.39 0.33 0.24 0.04 0.01

% Biennial Growth Base 2.4% 5.8% 1.7% 6.5% 1.5% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0%

3Gross Square Feet (in millions)

Performance Measures and Planning Guidelines

FPU has identified three key performance measures intended to gauge the state of our portfolio. The information provided through the statewide facility planning process in-form these measures at an agency and enterprise level, and provide a relevant “snap-shot” that speaks to effectiveness, efficiency, and affordability:

• Effective: Facility Condition Index (FCI) - an industry benchmark to compare rela-tive building condition.

• Efficient: Usable square footage per position count (USF/PC) – a modification of a common real estate measure of space utilization

• Affordable: Cost per square foot managed – a modification of an industry measure of operational cost efficiency

State agencies are charged with implementing long-range maintenance and manage-ment plans to ensure that facilities are maintained in good condition to maximize use-ful life. To assist agencies and the Legislature in prioritizing investment to steward the state’s real estate assets, the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) implemented an initiative to collect detailed conditions information, including seismic and natural hazard risk assessments, on state-owned facilities. Using a statewide, programmatic approach, facility condition assessment (FCA) services were offered in the 2013-2015 and 2015-2017 biennia to agencies in an effort to ensure a consistent assessment meth-odology and uniform measure of facilities condition. In 2017-2019 biennium, four agen-cies self-funded their FCA’s.

By the end of the 2017-19 biennium, a total of 11 agencies, comprising over 70 percent of agency-owned facility gross square footage, will have completed their facility con-

7

ditions assessments of major buildings and campuses. These include Department of Administrative Services (DAS), Department of Corrections (DOC), Department of Public Safety, Standards and Training (DPSST) Oregon Department of Education (ODE), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC), Oregon Military Department (OMD), Oregon Depart-ment of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon State Police (OSP), and Oregon Youth Authority (OYA). As of December 2018, Capital Renewal and Deferred Maintenance needs for as-sessed buildings are estimated at $860 million over the next ten years. Extrapolating for facilities yet to be assessed increases the estimated needs to $1.2 billion.

E F F E C T I V EFacility Condition Index (FCI) – A calculated measure of facility condition relative to its current replacement value (expressed as a percentage) and represented by the follow-ing categories:

• Good (0 – 5%) – In new or well-maintained condition with no visual evidence of wear, soiling or other deficiencies.

• Fair (5 – 10%) – Subject to wear and soiling, but is still in a serviceable and func-tioning condition.

• Poor (10 – 60%) – Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life.

• Very Poor (>60%) – Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.

The FCA process revealed that there is a great deal of variation in the current condition of state buildings and facilities by agency, with DAS, DPSST and ODOT buildings ranked in good condition with the balance in fair to poor condition. The analysis suggests that if additional resources are not applied over the course of the coming decade to the ongoing funding of capital renewal and deferred maintenance, in aggregate, all agency building and facilities will decline to the poor condition FCI levels by FY 2028.

CHALLENGE: DATA GAPS

FCA data is detailed, comprehensive and the best available at a statewide level. To date, not all agencies or buildings have been assessed. These buildings will report as having no needed work in the database, which we know is not accurate. Agencies who self-re-port generally under-estimate need.

This plan extrapolates deficiency estimates across the statewide portfolio to account for this data gap. For buildings assessed, not all deficiencies have been identified. The scope of the assessments are limited to buildings and limited site information. Special-ties such as security systems, lab equipment, fish tanks, dams and other civil infrastruc-ture are not part of the assessments. Deficiencies known by agency facility managers that were not conveyed to the FCA team during the preinspection, inspection or report review period may not be reflected in the database. Newly emergent deficiencies and elevated or changed priorities (e.g. unexpected failures) may not be reflected in the database, which are normal events that require flexibility for the agencies to remedy. Agencies that use other CAFM systems (e.g. DAS) may update iPlan/4Tell Platform only through periodic reviews.

T A B L E I I I : C U R R E N T ( 2 0 1 8 ) A N D 1 0 -Y E A R ( 2 0 2 8 ) F C I B Y A G E N C Y

AGENCY GSF*FCI CURRENT

2015-17FCI CURRENT

2017-19FCI CURRENT

2019-21FCI 10-YEAR

2028FCA

STATUS

Administrative Services (DAS) 4,228,002 N/A 2% 4% 16% Complete

Liquor Control (OLCC) 283,714 N/A 39% 13% 30% Complete

Youth Authority (OYA) 625,753 N/A 18% 13% 23% Complete

Corrections (DOC) 5,245,268 N/A 10% 12% 18% Complete

Transportation (ODOT) 3,268,433 N/A 10% 8% 36% Complete

Military (OMD) 3,209,637 N/A 20% 22% 15% Complete

Public Safety (DPSST) 328,023 N/A N/A 2% 18% Complete

Education (ODE) 285,202 N/A N/A 15% 28% Complete

Employment (OED) 121,654 N/A N/A 12% 52% Complete

Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) 1,378,135 N/A N/A 1% 10% Complete

Forestry (ODF) 848,865 N/A N/A 12% 25% Complete

State Police 30,837 N/A N/A 3% 13% Complete

Veterans Affairs (ODVA) 324,604 N/A N/A N/A N/A In-Progress

Aviation 49,526 N/A N/A N/A N/A In-Progress

Agriculture (ODA) 20,666 N/A N/A N/A N/A Self-Report

Health Authority (OHA) 992,700 N/A N/A N/A N/A Self-Report

Parks & Recreation (OPRD) 959,711 N/A N/A N/A N/A Self-Report

PERS 60,220 N/A N/A N/A N/A Self-Report

State Lands (DSL) 81,696 N/A N/A N/A N/A Self-Report

State Lottery 98,222 N/A N/A N/A N/A Self-Report

*Gross Square Footage (GSF) includes all major and minor facilities as of February 24, 2020, and excludes related site system square footage.

8

OPPORTUNITY: IMPACT OF SB 1067

With the passage of SB 1067 by the 2017 Legislature, the Governor’s Budget for each biennium is required to include a recommended amount for deferred maintenance and capital improvements on existing state-owned buildings and infrastructure of at least two percent of the current replacement value. As used in this context, state-owned buildings and infrastructure excludes buildings and infrastructure owned or used by public universities and community colleges, and also excludes transportation infra-structure, such as roads and bridges. If funded, the cumulative funding will surpass the estimated net liability in 2025.

F I G U R E I : 1 0 -Y E A R F U N D I N G I M P A C T S O N A N N U A L C O S T ( 2 0 1 8 - 2 8 )

$0

$ 2 00M

$4 00M

$600M

$800M

$ 1 . 0 B

$ 1 . 2 B

2 0 2 82 0 2 72 0 2 62 0 2 52 0 242 0 2 32 0 2 22 0 2 12 0 2 02 0 1 92 0 1 8

■ CUMULATIVE COSTS* ■ CUMULATIVE ANNUAL FUNDING** ■ NET LIABILITY

*Estimated capital renewal/deferred maintenance only**Assumes biennial funding @ 2% of total CRV (SB 1067) normalized to 2018 dollars

For the 2019-21 Governor’s Budget, deferred maintenance is funded at 2.9 percent of the current replacement value of state-owned buildings and infrastructure.

E F F I C I E N TThe concept of a modern workspace has changed over the years with advances in both technology as well as a shifting concept of collaborative office work. Poor space use can increase cost, reduce usability, hinder modern work practices and negatively affect the

goal of attracting and retaining talent. To understand the implications of this at the State level, in 2015-16, FPU initiated a workspace strategy project to develop and implement new work space guidelines for DAS owned and agency-leased office space. The goal was to develop a modern workspace strategy that supports agency missions.

The result was a measure of space utilization, a calculation of how efficiently space is being used, varying for different space types, with greater emphasis on office/admin-istrative uses. The study and subsequent tools developed led to new space guide-lines, including the adoption of 175 usable square feet (USF)/position count for office/administrative uses. For agencies with less than 10% office/administrative spaces, an agency-specific metric was developed (see Facility Summary Narrative 107BF16a) that provides insight into how agencies with primarily non-office-based operations deter-mine their space needs. The relevant metric an individual agency uses as a measure of their space needs, and by extension, their space efficiency.

T A B L E I V : S P A C E U T I L I Z AT I O N – U S F / A G E N C Y U N I T – S E L F - R E P O R T E D B Y A G E N C Y

AGENCY USF/UNIT 2017-19 USF/UNIT 2019-21 UNIT TYPE

PERS 214 208 Seat (Office)

Aviation 285 266 Seat (Office)

Forestry (ODF) 357 262 Seat (Office)

Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) 494 451 Seat (Office)

Employment (OED) 868 364 Seat (Office)

Military (OMD) 4139 358 Seat (Office)

Parks & Recreation (OPRD) 67 67 Seat (Office)

Administrative Services (DAS) 185 185 Seat (Office)

State Lands (DSL) 258 258 Seat (Office)

Liquor Control (OLCC) 413 413 Seat (Office)

Veterans Affairs (ODVA) 695 695 Seat (Office)

Education (ODE) 144/868 144/882 Seat (Office)/Student

Youth Authority (OYA) 150/758 150/758 Seat (Office)/Youth (Inmate)

Corrections (DOC) 282 283 Inmate

Agriculture (ODA) N/A N/A N/A

Health Authority (OHA) N/A N/A N/A

Public Safety (DPSST) N/A N/A N/A

State Lottery N/A N/A N/A

Transportation (ODOT) N/A N/A N/A

*N/A = Not Applicable

9

A F F O R D A B L EOperations and maintenance (O&M) costs per gross square foot (managed) is an in-dustry standard measure of affordability, and varies by building and operational type. To calculate affordability in agency facility portfolios, each agency’s O&M budgets, ex-cluding capital improvements and deferred maintenance, is averaged by the total agen-cy-managed GSF. This consists of each agencies specific budget for Personal Services (PS) and Supplies and Services (S&S), and any utilities costs that are not included in the PS and S&S budgets.

T A B L E V : O P E R AT I N G & M A I N T E N A N C E C O S T / G S F – S E L F - R E P O R T E D B Y A G E N C Y

AGENCY 2015-17 2017-19 % CHANGE

Forestry (ODF) $3.36 $6.76 101.20%

PERS $20.79 $29.74 43.00%

Education (ODE) $8.89 $8.93 0.40%

Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) $2.91 $3.08 5.80%

Administrative Services (DAS) $14.75 $15.40 4.40%

Corrections (DOC) $14.51 $15.67 8.00%

Youth Authority (OYA) $15.27 $18.66 22.20%

Health Authority (OHA) $14.15 $14.86 5.00%

Transportation (ODOT) $11.29 $11.60 2.70%

Public Safety (DPSST) $16.86 $18.22 8.10%

Employment (OED) $7.46 $7.79 4.40%

Aviation $10.46 $12.85 22.80%

State Lands (DSL) $13.00 $10.00 -23.10%

Military (OMD) $14.34 $21.05 46.80%

Liquor Control (OLCC) $4.07 $4.57 12.30%

Veterans Affairs (ODVA) $3.12 $5.04 61.50%

Agriculture (ODA)** N/A N/A N/A

State Lottery** N/A N/A N/A

Parks & Recreation (OPRD)** N/A N/A N/A

*N/A = Not Applicable**These agency operations are exempt from reporting this metric

Integrated Planning Tools

Integrated, data-driven planning provides rational foresight for developing long-range investment strategies. Since all data has attributes of time and space, analyzing infor-mation in a spatial context is essential for strategic decision-making. Presenting the “what, where, when, and how” on a map can reveal unexpected patterns and relation-ships, identify opportunities and constraints, and help illustrate the complexity of so-cial, economic and environmental issues. Spatial analysis allows us to calculate our “programmatic footprint”, such as economic impact and job creation, or assess external threats, including natural hazard risks and climate change. Visualized in an intuitive way, such as a virtual 3D world, information is more accessible and imparts a more holistic perspective. Data collected at the agency/assessment level can be pivoted and integrated with other data sources, providing a synergistic effect that offers a deeper level of analysis than can be achieved by the assessment data alone.

L E V E R A G I N G G E O G R A P H I C I N F O R M AT I O NTo support this effort, the FPU has installed an Enterprise Geodatabase alongside our on premise SQL server Facilities Data Mart that synchronizes data originating in the assessment process to the GIS. As a part of that step, the data becomes contextual on maps, and is published to the GIS server for sharing across the State to other agencies as well as to the public on a more limited basis. Once data is joined to a map, third-party curated data sources are available for enrichment of the data, including demographic and economic tapestries, giving the agencies a multifaceted window into the manner in which the building is serving or not serving the mission of the agency. Spatial con-text allows the agency to view the narrative activity space of the facility as it relates to their business and, ultimately, to the overall mission of State government. Key data sources such as US Census Bureau and demographic data become available, and pro-vide a window to the footprint on the local community. Effects on local and state-wide economic activity have been quantified and expressed as impact statements to help inform development decisions. Likewise, data from other GIS departments across the state in other agencies is sharable and interoperable with FPU data. For example, ODOT road network infrastructure assessments have been overlaid onto facility locations to understand travel times and potential impacts of outages.

1 0

D AT A P O R T A LFPU Data Portal is a geowebsite powered by universal geospatial technology that serves as a marketplace for facility geographic data products. These products are syn-chronized with our SQL database so that the information contained therein is current and accurately reflects values found in the 4Tell platform. From this portal, other GIS users across the state can work with this data in a seamless and interoperable way. Non-GIS users can take advantage of curated data products that do not require GIS training to use but nonetheless allow self-service in many common map-based queries.

B U I L D I N G - L E V E L D AT A C O L L E C T I O NFPU has worked diligently to ensure both the quality and the completeness of the data that passes into the Geodatabase. From applying statewide standard addressing to ensuring the correct geolocation of facilities, the FPU quality-controls the geodata products for analytics. A planning process is strengthened when as many unknown elements are removed as is feasible. To this end, occupancy and space utilization is a metric of interest, requiring a deep-level of data granularity (see discussion above on efficient buildings). The goal is the ability to offer views into the data from multiple reso-lutions – ranging from statewide to the individual cubicle. This data is often derived from CAD, but much of it must be self-reported at the building level either through building managers or by employees themselves.

The FPU has a process by which CAD is imported to the GIS and to the extent that the drawings are annotated, these values are also imported. In the event that data is missing or drawings are incomplete (or non-existent), FPU has developed mobile apps that allow employees and managers to report on occupancy and on space utilization. Future plans include linking this data to Computer Aided Facility Management (CAFM) software such as IBM Tririga (which has been adopted by DAS). Part of this future capac-ity includes the ability to integrate real-time and Internet-of-things (IoT) data, such as energy usage. The State Office of Emergency Management has reported that real-time data would be of great value to agencies as they develop resilience plans or Cascadia recovery plans.

P O R T F O L I O - L E V E L A N A LY S I STwo dimensional plotting of building locations and associated attribute data allows geostatistical interpretation and instant inter-agency coordination with other GIS de-

partments. Data is collected, joined to spatial coordinates one time only, and is pivoted in multi-dimensional ways. Stored using a versioned methodology, changes are record-ed and tracked temporally. This allows historic geographic snapshots to be retrieved up to a specified three years.

Since the emergency response community is already engaging in planning through GIS technology, it makes sense that FPU follows suit and ports facility data to Geodatabases for sharing in the event of emergencies. Already, FPU has engaged in disaster planning with ODOT, and with DOGAMI. Geographic data includes elevation fields, so flood risk is easily assessed, as well as historic climate data so fire risk forecasting can be accessed within the department or through coordination with the State Fire Marshall.

Modern GIS approaches include the ability to model any map into 3D. This ability em-powered the creation of an integrated planning tool. The tool is a 3D innovative technol-ogy platform utilizing powerful, integrating planning information and performance mea-surements to support strategic investment decisions. Multi-source data is aggregated in a database and linked to a range of spatial layers in an engaging 3D GIS environment. Information is delivered through a dashboard-like interface with the ability to switch analytical views and perform queries within a seamless user experience customized for modern devices, such as an iPad. The platform allows users to consume information on demand with an unprecedented level of interactivity (even allowing public comments), thereby increasing both civic engagement and government transparency. Additionally, the data is ready-made for integration with the State-wide GeoHub initiative, complying with State and Federal guidelines for geospatial data. The underlying technology en-ables dynamic (virtually real-time) publishing, dramatically increasing the efficiency of typical (and mostly static) analytical workflows.

R E S I L I E N C E A N D C O M M U N I T Y S T R E N G T HOf vital importance to any planning process is to ensure that all stakeholders have a voice, and that all potential threats are analyzed to the best of current ability. This is more true with state facilities since buildings not only represent a long-term invest-ment, they also are perhaps the most public-facing manifestation of government that an average citizen encounters. FPU uses scoring matrices to ensure that these values are considered on the planning process. Specifically, GIS modeling helps to visualize the impact of state facility investments on communities through analysis of demographic variables and community tapestry. These data can be reported around key outcome areas and strategic goals on a local, regional, and statewide level, giving agencies an understanding of investment scenarios, measure systemic impacts, and create mean-

1 1

ingful strategic plans informed by data. From the perspective of a citizen of the state, these systems maximize the consumer experience to increase issue/program literacy and improve government transparency.

Project Prioritization

The Statewide Facility Planning Process provides a uniform approach to evaluating proj-ect funding based on how the project achieves three distinct plan dimensions: Facility Stewardship (Priorities 1-3), Resilience/Risk Mitigation (Priority 4), and Modernization (Priority 5). In addition, projects are subjectively evaluated for funding recommenda-tions based on “readiness” criteria.

A G E N C Y P L A N / P R I O R I T Y S U M M A R YAgencies must present a cost summary that clearly addresses Deferred Maintenance (Priority 1), Capital Renewal (Priorities 2/3), Seismic/Risk (Priority 4), and Modernization (Priority 5). Modernization (Priority 5) should be shown as a net cost (less Priorities 1-4) to accurately account for priority-related costs, since total Modernization project costs may include Priority 1-4 project work in their scope. This allows agencies to demonstrate how modernization projects can effectively address these other priorities. Figure II pro-vides an example summary of plan costs by priority.

M A J O R C O N S T R U C T I O N / A C Q U I S I T I O N P R O J E C T S ( P R I O R I T Y 5 )At the heart of agency facility plans are Major Construction/Acquisition projects. Gen-erally, these projects represent an aggregation of smaller actions/interventions related to one facility, whether that facility is being renovated (modernized), or replaced. Major Construction/Acquisition project costs should be allocated by the funding amount di-rected toward each of the following plan dimensions: Facility Stewardship (Priorities 1-3), Resilience/Risk Mitigation (Priority 4), and Modernization (Priority 5). A project may address multiple dimensions— for instance, a facility renovation project may elim-inate a portion of deferred maintenance and allow for a seismic rehabilitation in one execution. Distributing project costs in this manner provides added transparency, and illuminates a project’s effectiveness at addressing multiple funding priorities. Figure III provides an example aggregated project summary

P R O J E C T R E A D I N E S SIn addition to satisfying basic criteria, such as alignment with a referenced strategic plan/program initiative, demonstration of mission-critical or other need, and reason-able exploration/analysis of alternative solutions, project funding recommendations will correspond to project development phasing and reflect the level of due diligence, planning, and design/execution completed. Project readiness recommendations will be performed by members of the CPAB. For projects exceeding $5M in total cost, an agen-cy must present to CPAB at each applicable funding developmental phase to receive continued Board recommend support

FACILITY STEWARDSHIP (PRIORITIES 1-3)

• Does this project(s) involve eliminating deferred maintenance and/or addressing capital renewal?

• Please summarize qualifying project costs by the priority addressed (Priorities 1-3)

• Does your agency have sufficient capacity to execute these projects?

— If no, what is your plan for ensuring the timely execution of these projects?

• Describe the project(s) scope (such as major roof project) and the approximate schedule of execution.

• What is the intended project delivery method? (e.g. CM/GC, DBB, GMP)

RESILIENCE/RISK (PRIORITY 4)

• Does this project(s) involve implementing resilience and/or mitigate a hazard or risk?

• Please summarize qualifying project costs by the priority addressed (Priority 4)

• Does your agency have sufficient capacity to execute these projects?

— If no, what is your plan for ensuring the timely execution of these projects?

• Describe the project(s) scope (such as seismic rehabilitation) and the approximate schedule of execution.

• What is the intended project delivery method? (e.g. CM/GC, DBB, GMP)

MODERNIZATION (PRIORITY 5)

• Does this project(s) involve a facility modernization?

1 2

— If yes, is this a replacement facility?

• Is this a new facility (adds new capacity)?

• Please summarize qualifying project costs by the priority addressed (Priority 5)

• Does this project implement an adopted facility/agency plan goal/strategy?

— If yes, reference specific plan language this project addresses.

• Does this project meet a mission-critical or other agency/program-related need?

— If yes, describe how this project fulfills this need

• Describe alternative solutions considered

• What is the intended project delivery method? (e.g. CM/GC, DBB, GMP)

• Have you completed the following project development phases:

✓ Phase I: Initial Feasibility/Preliminary Cost Estimates

— Required: Preliminary project scope/cost estimate, and source of estimate

✓ Phase II: Planning/Conceptual Design/Site Identification or Acquisition

— Required: Concept design/site plan

✓ Phase III: Architectural Design/Engineering

— Required: Project presentation with current A/E cost estimate/construction schedule

✓ Phase IV: Construction

— Required: Detailed A/E cost estimate/construction schedule; any significant scope changes

F I G U R E I I : E X A M P L E — A G E N C Y P L A N / P R I O R I T Y S U M M A R Y M AT R I X

AGENCY PLAN SUMMARY

DM/LIFE SAFETY (PRIORITY 1)

CAPITAL RENEWAL (PRIORITY 2)

CAPITAL RENEWAL (PRIORITY 3)

SEISMIC/RISK (PRIORITY 4)

MODERNIZATION(NET PRIORITY 5)1 TOTAL

DM/CR $20M $15M $10M $0 $0 $45M

Resilience/Risk $0 $0 $0 $5M $0 $5M

Modernization $0 $0 $0 $0 $40M $40M

Total $20M $15M $10M $5M $40M $90M

1Priority 5, less project-related Priority 1-4 costs

F I G U R E I I I : E X A M P L E — A G G R E G AT E D P R O J E C T S U M M A R Y

PROJECT NAME TOTAL COST DM/CR RESILIENCE MODERNIZATION PROJECT PHASE READINESS

East Office Building Remodel $50M $10M $5M $35M IV Full Funding

Agency 10-year Plan Summaries

Consistent findings across the state are that deferred maintenance and capital renewal make up 80 percent of the needs of the State’s built environment. The following agen-cies are grouped by program areas. Plan summaries of the most pressing capital needs have been identified as of the date of this report. These projects were either funded in the 2019-21 biennium and/or will likely require funding in the future.

A D M I N I S T R AT I O NThe buildings and infrastructure of administrative agencies is appropriately made up of owned and leased office buildings in the Salem and Portland Metro areas. Every ad-ministrative program area agency has completed their FCA’s (Facility Condition Assess-ments), except PERS. Capital renewal and deferred maintenance are the most pressing issues.

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (DAS)

The DAS portfolio has deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $172 million and $305 million in ten years. The key projects for the 2017-19 biennium are:

• New Mission Critical Building for post-Cascadia state operations.

• Continued deferred and planned maintenance work.

• Workspace Strategy Program funding to address the top ten buildings for earth-quake risk management within a 10 year period.

• Public Service Building and Albina Office Building capital renewal and seismic ret-rofits.

OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION (OLCC)

OLCC has deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $8 million today and $17 mil-lion in ten years. OLCC plans on a warehouse roof replacement and is one of the first

1 3

agencies focusing on implementing seismic upgrades for their facilities. Due to the addition of marijuana programs, OLCC is acquiring additional lease space to accommo-date the growth of FTE. Leased facilities in regional offices are being relocated to larger leased facilities to accommodate current and future growth. OLCC wants an analysis of the current owned office facility in Portland to help determine the cost benefit of new construction versus seeking additional lease space in their areas of operation. Finally OLCC wishes to study the long term viability of maintaining the distribution center in its current location. Funding will be needed to conduct the analyses above.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS)

PERS headquarters was constructed in 1996 and has deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $140 thousand and $735 thousand in ten years. PERS headquarters was constructed in 1996 and up until now, only Operation & Maintenance has been needed. The headquarters roof and HVAC systems, though currently in good condition, have both exceeded normal longevity expectations and will likely require budgeting up to $595K to replace both sometime in the next 1 to 5 years. PERS needs a facility condition assessment to develop a master plan for future needs and options for housing PERS operations. Decisions will include whether to stay in the current HQ building / location, which in turn will drive decisions regarding whether to budget for and spend funds on significant maintenance & capital improvements that will become absolutely necessary if PERS remains in this facility.

E C O N O M I C A N D C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T The buildings and infrastructure of housing and community development agencies is made up of owned and leased office buildings, and veteran’s homes sprinkled across the state. The Employment Department completed their FCA’s in 2019 for 2021-23 re-porting, and the Department of Veterans Affairs is in process. ODVA’s data should be captured and available for reporting before the end of Q1 2020. Capital renewal and deferred maintenance are the most pressing issues.

OREGON EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT (OED)

OED has deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $5 million today and $10 million in ten years. Their maintenance program serves their immediate needs, but they are lacking information about the future needs of the facilities. The costs reflected in the FCI analysis is self-reported. OED will participate in the Facility Conditions Assessment Program (FCA) in 2019-21 for the deferred maintenance and capital renewal needs and schedule (assuming funding continues). Their portfolio is in the iPlan/4tell platform system of record.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN’S AFFAIRS (ODVA)

Without FCAs completed as of yet for their portfolio, ODVA self-reports deferred main-tenance and capital renewal of $11 million today and $0 in 10 years. ODVA is planning work on its homes in Lebanon and The Dalles. At the Lebanon facility, a dementia unit addition is planned to meet the growing demand for its veterans as well as a separate storage and administrative office facility. ODVA’s headquarters facility will have a reno-vation of the second floor for better visual control and function. To update the exterior of the The Dalles Veterans’ Home (ca. 1996), the exterior has a number of design flaws of its metal skin envelope resulting in water infiltration and other failures. This will be redesigned and replaced.

E D U C AT I O NThe buildings and infrastructure of education agencies is made up of The Oregon De-partment of Education’s (ODE) School for the Deaf campus, with over $2.5 million in ADA deficiencies in addition to its deferred maintenance and capital renewal needs of $8.8 million (current) and $16.7 million in 2028. To continue operations at this campus requires significant future investment. Capital renewal and deferred maintenance are the most pressing issues.

1 4

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ODE)

ODE’s Oregon School for the Deaf campus is one of the oldest in the state’s portfolio. In the last two legislative sessions funding was authorized to address some Priority 1 life safety issues and other immediately critical needs. The School for the Deaf also participated in the reality television show “Extreme Makeover” which created a dorm for 25 boys. The agency has plans to add another two phases of the same “Makeover” additions. Their overall portfolio condition is reported to be very poor. They plan to par-ticipate in the Facility Conditions Assessment Program (FCA) in 2018, providing further insight into their deferred maintenance and capital renewal needs moving forward.

H U M A N S E R V I C E SThe buildings and infrastructure of human services agencies is mostly leased buildings across the state, although the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) owns and manages the Oregon State Hospital facilities. Both self-reporting and without FCAs completed yet, the Department of Human Services (DHS) has $8 million in projects today, and OHA reports current deferred maintenance and capital renewal needs of $9 million.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (DHS)

DHS is the largest state agency by employees. Together with OHA, the agencies deliver services to over 1.6 million Oregonians, or roughly 40 percent of the state. DHS’s size and operations are very dynamic, and correspond to the level of forecasted caseloads that follow population/demographic trends. As a result, DHS does not have Legislative authority to own real estate. Instead, their portfolio is entirely leased, and their Facilities Services group manages leases for both DHS and OHA. They support community sta-bility in part through their leasing activities, which are particularly important in small towns and rural communities.

N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E SThe buildings and infrastructure of natural resource agencies is specialized, widely dis-persed and aging. Both Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Depart-ment of Forestry (ODF) have completed the FCA’s of all their major facilities and those proximate to those facilities. The departments of Agriculture, State Lands, and Parks &

Recreation have not yet had their portfolios assessed. Capital renewal and deferred maintenance are the most pressing issues.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY (ODF)

ODF’s six regions have deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $21 million and $46 million in ten years. ODF has recently completed the assessment of the majority of its larger facilities and many smaller associated auxiliary facilities. ODF has a total of 303 buildings assessed thus far. Once staff has completed its training on the iPlan/4tell plat-form, the objective is to assess the remaining buildings and structures in the portfolio, and to consistently and centrally manage the capital improvement and deferred main-tenance of its buildings and structures. Once the data has been collected, processed, and evaluated, the department will be able to more effectively plan for all future capital construction, capital renewal, and deferred maintenance projects.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE (ODFW)

ODFW’s deferred maintenance and capital renewal are $16 million (2018) and $30 mil-lion (2028) for facilities, however their civil infrastructure (fish ladders, tanks, etc.) proj-ects are expected to double these needs. ODFW faces degradation of facilities and civil infrastructure that compromise the structural integrity of their core functions, and are searching for adequate funding streams and staffing resources to allow for timely repair or replacement of facilities. The first challenge for ODFW is a consistent funding source to perform the necessary repairs or replacements of facilities. The agency will also need adequate staff to either design the repairs/replacements or to oversee consultants to perform the design work.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (ODA)

Without FCAs completed as of yet for their portfolio, ODA self-reports deferred main-tenance and capital renewal of $491 thousand today and $537 thousand in ten years. ODA plans to participate in the Facility Conditions Assessment Program (FCA) in 2019-21 (assuming DAS funding continues). ODA has experienced increased demand for its laboratories due to marijuana and hemp testing (ODA regulates marijuana as a com-modity crop), and existing lab facilities have proven to be inadequate for this increased demand. ODA engaged an architectural consultant to evaluate the status of their labora-tory facilities to meet the agency mission and organizational needs. The recommenda-tion from the study is to consolidate several of its lab facilities. ODA is requesting $200K in planning funds in 2019-20 to conduct a feasibility study for consolidation options,

1 5

program and associated costs. They are also asking for $400K to rebuild their Ontario field office, which suffered a snow-related roof collapse.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS (DSL)

Without FCAs completed as of yet for their portfolio, DSL self-reports deferred mainte-nance and capital renewal of $366 thousand today and $0 in ten years. DSL has suffi-cient space for their future needs and are therefore not planning any significant work or new leases. DSL is researching the possibility to self-fund participation in the Facility Conditions Assessment (FCA) program in 2019-21 if funding allows, providing further insight into their deferred maintenance and capital renewal needs moving forward.

OREGON PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT (OPRD)

Without FCAs completed as of yet for their portfolio, OPRD self-reports deferred main-tenance and capital renewal of $762 thousand today and $2 million in ten years. OPRD needs adequate funding to meet its emergent maintenance needs. Increasing visitation due to population growth in Oregon and a longer summer season requires increased levels of preventive maintenance and taxes an aging infrastructure. Facilities such as utilities struggle to keep up with the increased demand. Buildings and structures are a small part of their operations and maintenance budget. Most of the facility expendi-tures are devoted to the management of park lands and other assets. All facilities and structures are tracked and managed in OPRD’s custom “OPRIS” system, where projects are identified, prioritized, funded and executed internally without requesting additional capital funding. OPRD’s Facility Investment Program uses operations and maintenance funding to address identified facility needs. OPRD has a robust self-assessment pro-gram. In the future, they may participate in the DAS Facility Conditions Assessment Program.

P U B L I C S A F E T YThe buildings and infrastructure of public safety agencies is appropriately made up of correctional and training facilities across Oregon. Every public safety program area agency has completed their FCA’s (Facility Condition Assessments). Capital renewal and deferred maintenance are the most pressing issues. Both the Oregon Youth Author-ity (OYA) and the Department of Corrections (DOC) have significant backlogs of deferred maintenance on their facilities, for which a combined $67 million of Article XI-Q bonds was authorized in the 2017-19 biennium.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (DOC)

DOC’s portfolio has deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $203 million and $412 million in ten years. DOC needs improvement and renewal funding reflective of the project needs identified in their recent FCA, to include project and position funding to complete the recommended renovations and proactively manage any unforeseen failures due to the fragile condition of current critical systems. SB 1067 identifies monies for ODOC to make progress toward eliminating their deferred maintenance and capital renewal backlog. DOC is requesting bonding for capital renewal and a deferred mainte-nance backlog, and capital projects including a radio system upgrade, camera system upgrade, project staffing, a demolition, and 10 Year Strategic Master Plan development. Before DOC can definitively address the structural needs, we need to identify the chang-ing physical and programmatic needs of our adults in custody. DOC’s Destination 2026 is working toward targeting population needs— specifically, our aging geriatric popula-tion and the growing need to provide drug and alcohol services to inmates.

OREGON MILITARY DEPARTMENT (OMD)

OMD is currently participating in the Facility Conditions Assessment Program (FCA). Their report reflects both FCA data and OMD’s own robust internal needs assessments, with the intent that the FCA data will replace the agency data as it is completed. Their portfolio currently shows deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $135 million and $112 million in ten years. The OMD 2019-21 budget request includes three major facility renovations in the Amory Service Life Extension Program (ASLEP) totaling approximate-ly $16M: Owen Summers, Anderson Readiness Center, and Jackson Armory. They are also requesting funds for Regional Armory Emergency Enhancements (RAEEP) projects at the Salem and Pendleton Aviation Support Facilities. The budget reflects an assump-tion of a federal match, which OMD has been successful in achieving to date. The scope reflects the State budget request only. If a Federal match is granted, the scope would increase to address other needs including deferred maintenance. OMD recently com-pleted the Facility Conditions Assessment Program (FCA). Their intention is to replace their own robust internal assessments data with the engineering firm FCA data.

OREGON YOUTH AUTHORITY (OYA)

OYA’s portfolio has deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $27 million today and $46 million in ten years. OYA has a 10-year strategic facilities plan that identifies facility maintenance/renovation needs estimated at over $50 million. This two-phase plan ad-dresses the age and condition of OYA’s facilities; environmental issues; needed seismic

1 6

upgrades; and handicap access to the appropriate types of space for OYA programs related to treatment, recreation, housing, visitation, education and vocational training. OYA’s 2014 Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA) report identified immediate as well as long term facility needs over a 10-year horizon. These findings along with a fundamental programmatic transformation in how youth are housed, moving from a penal environ-ment to rehabilitation and positive human development, informed OYA’s future facility disposition and consolidation strategy.

OREGON STATE POLICE (OSP)

OSP’s portfolio has deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $4 million and $9 mil-lion in ten years. OSP was only recently given statutory authority to own real property. As new owners, OSP wants a hands-on site assessment as well as time to analyze the FCA completed in 14/15. OSP will align space needs with the Department’s 10-year plan including addition of new troopers, conduct a thorough space analysis to identify op-portunities for restacks or remodels to improve efficiencies, and develop a 10-yr plan for their owned and triple net lease properties.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STANDARDS AND TRAINING (DPSST)

DPSST’s portfolio has deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $1 million today and $19 million in ten years. DPSST is the State’s Public Safety Training Academy. They con-structed a new campus and headquarters facility in 2006, and recently completed a Facility Conditions Assessment. DPSST has been operating close to capacity due to growth in public safety professions and training facility needs. DPSST’s 2006 master plan included a headquarters building designed for phased growth of its dormitory wing, allowing for future expansion when needed. This biennium, DPSST is requesting $1.1M in architectural and engineering funds to move forward on developing a dorm building expansion, as well as address campus-wide analysis of electrical generator backup.

T R A N S P O R T AT I O NThe buildings and infrastructure of transportation agencies is appropriately made up of regional headquarters, grounds and storage facilities across the State. All Transporta-tion program area facilities have had their FCA’s (Facility Condition Assessments) com-pleted for major buildings. Most funding for Transportation goes to roads and runways, leaving the buildings neglected. Capital renewal and deferred maintenance are the

most pressing issues.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION (AVIATION)

Aviation self-reports deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $50 thousand today and $214 thousand in ten years. Aviation is a completely Other Funded agency. While they do receive funding from the FAA, this is restricted to capital development at the State owned federally funded airports. FAA funding cannot be used for O&M or capital projects that are not directly runway/taxiway related. Aviation’s headquarters building is a 60+ year old facility that has exceeded its useful life. Due to the age of the facility, there is hazmat remediation that needs to be addressed. The current building sits on state owned land, located at the Salem Airport. There is a reversionary clause where the property returns to the city of Salem if the state vacates it. The property is ideal for Avi-ation, due to its central location to the states five busiest airports, close proximity to I-5 and its convenience for the aviation community to have easy access by airplane or car when conducting business with Oregon Department of Aviation. Aviation procured a Facility Conditions Assessment in 2019 on their headquarters to understand their needs and challenges coming into the next biennial budget cycle.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ODOT)

ODOT’s portfolio has deferred maintenance and capital renewal of $29 million and $83 million over ten years. The bulk of ODOT’s capital funding is for highway, bridge and other non-facility projects. The operations and maintenance funding consists of other funds and a very tiny fraction of federal funds. To date, no general funds are received for this purpose. Facilities is a relatively small portion of the agency portfolio and of-ten the last group to receive funding. ODOT completed a facility condition assessment (FCA) in 2017 with assessments of 174 buildings totaling approximately 1.67 million GSF. The focus of the assessments were buildings valued at $1M or over and/or 10,000 GSF and the smaller structure proximate or otherwise deemed mission critical by ODOT. The remaining small structures are being assessed by ODOT’s team on a rotating basis. Seismic and flood hazard assessments are still pending. ODOT CMMS records indicate they have $51M of “functional need” that must be reconciled with the mainly “structural need” identified in their facility condition assessment. ODOT’s current biennial ask will address both structural and functional maintenance requests.

1 7

Plan Conclusions

Over the next 10 years, the state will invest in new replacement facilities, facility mod-ernizations, facility deferred maintenance and capital renewal and significantly, seismic safety. Growth is expected to be modest and best accommodated by efficient construc-tion and building interior design that replaces aging and poorly performing facilities. This strategy will reduce the overall deferred maintenance backlog while increasing functionality, efficiency and safety.

SYSTEMATICALLY FUND DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL RENEWAL

Funding SB 1067 will turn the corner on the growth of deferred maintenance and capital renewal. The development and implementation of DAS’s comprehensive facility assess-ment program will enable Oregon to make more informed facility investment decisions. The 2017 Legislature passage of SB 1067 requires the Governor’s Budget to include at least 2 percent of agency CRV towards funding deferred maintenance and capital re-newal for executive agencies. With an estimated $1.2B in need over the next 10 years, continued funding at the 2 percent level the state investment would exceed the net growth by 2026.

INCREASE INVESTMENT IN MODERNIZATIONS AND BUILDING REPLACEMENTS

The state’s major facilities are the primary focus of agency plans. They are critical to mission delivery, particularly for facility-dependent agencies and have the greatest val-ue and enterprise risk. With the exception of structural components, facilities last 50 years on average. With an average age of over 40 years for major facilities, the state should be replacing or modernizing approximately 20 per biennium.

SEISMIC AND NATURAL HAZARD RESILIENCE THOUGH INTEGRATED PLANNING

Seismic remediation should be done concurrent with significant modernization and other major system renewal projects. Safety is the state’s obligation to its workforce and the citizens they serve. The benefit-cost analysis, recommendations, and mitigation prioritization, require technical expertise to complete, and will follow as funding allows. FPU attempts to model natural hazards where possible by partnerships with DOGAMI and through the use of GIS data available in–house. For example, 3D GIS models can demonstrate 100 and 500-year flood events, highlight areas that may be susceptible to landslides. And data layers detailing fire hazards can be intersected with climate mod-

els to highlight areas of concern for fire risk.

SUPPORTING COMMUNITIES

As mentioned, state agencies have an uncommon commitment to place. This is partic-ularly true in our diverse, geographically and culturally distinct state. The quality and character of state buildings help to define regional identity. Oregon’s public agency buildings are one of the most enduring assets in the state. These institutional facilities receive use over generations of Oregonians. The investments made in these real estate assets are often permanent, and the state stewards those investments in perpetuity for the region and its community. Demographic projections are key to this process – as the state’s demographics change over time, the facilities investments need to be nimble enough to pivot to accommodate those changes. These flexible investments ensure equity and respect for all constituents.

PROGRAM CONTINUITY

Consistent funding is needed to close data gaps and ensure that the facility condi-tion and seismic assessment programs continue. Assessments for the remaining nine agencies is needed to establish their baseline data. Facilities should be assessed ev-ery six years to ensure reliable data. Given the significant long-term savings that can be achieved through the funding of on-going and repair of existing state facilities, the January 2019 report of the Debt Policy Advisory Committee strongly urged the Governor and the Legislature to establish biennial “pay-as-you go” funding targets for the main-tenance and repair of existing state buildings, institutional facilities, and infrastructure based on FPU facility assessments.

1 8

Exhibits

A . F A C I L I T I E S P L A N N I N G U N I T T E C H N O L O G Y S U M M A R YFacility assessment is conducted by an assessment firm, Faithful & Gould, through the use of a software-as-a-service (SAAS) assessment platform – iPlan/4Tell platform. The data collected undergoes QA/QC by F&G during the assessment process. The product consists of a portable iPad app as well as a self-service website developed by a third party vendor, 4Tell Solutions. Data collected in the website or in the field is aggregated at F&G/4Tell, and is exposed to FPU analysis through several APIs. Further, this data is exported to FPU’s on-premises fully-versioned SQL server facilities data mart where the internal QA/QC process further enhances validity and accuracy, and converts non-spa-tial data into spatial objects. This process of centralization of the data allows for in-teroperability with the State Geospatial Information System (GIS) contracted through the State’s Enterprise License Agreement with ESRI. Reporting and analysis of the data occurs in the form of on-the-fly reporting capability in the 4Tell Platform, in Microsoft PowerBI for charting and graphics, as well as to Excel for pivoting on views.

F I G U R E A . 1 : T E C H N O L O G Y S U M M A R Y

1 9