Bachelor of Commerce (Digital Marketing) - Postsecondary ...

E. Capital Projects (Policy D-12)
E.2 Capital Projects (cont’d)
In February 2010 a presentation was provided for the Board on the current status of the
College’s UIR. A similar presentation was provided to the Board’s Capital Planning Policy
Review Task Force in January 2011. As each year passes, buildings grow older requiring
increased investments to adequately maintain the condition of the College’s facilities. As
levels of funding continue to be strained, the deferred facilities infrastructure renewal
continues to escalate causing the UIR to continue to rise. Provincial advocacy efforts
continue through various means to make government aware of this growing challenge. In
2010, the provincial auditor undertook a review of MTCU’s and selected college’s capital
planning processes, including capital planning to address UIR. The audit report was
released in December 2010. As a result of the audit report MTCU approved an initiative to
standardize the way Ontario colleges centrally track, monitor and report on deferred facilities
renewal. Colleges Ontario, together with representatives of Ontario College Facilities
Management Association (OCFMA) (including Fanshawe representatives) were assigned to
work with MTCU to develop an RFP to engage consultants to develop these standards
followed by an audit to update the facilities condition assessment information, which is
currently in process. The College has made and continues to make every reasonable effort
to address the more critical facilities renewal priorities, typically the building envelope and
major electrical/mechanical systems, to ensure that the facilities remain functional and to
reasonably manage risk.
It is important to understand that the software system and formulas used to calculate UIR
take all facilities infrastructure into account and uses industry standards for systems
renewal. Given the challenges relating to adequate funding levels, the extent of building
facilities scheduled for renewal by the software system are often more ambitious than the
College can realistically address when making actual investment decisions. For example,
stained ceiling tiles or worn carpet may be slated for replacement according to the software
formulas, but remain functional and thus need not be replaced for some longer period of
time and therefore the level of criticality the College would place on these elements is less
than the system software reflects.
By 2020, some of the College’s facilities will be more than 50 years old, in need of
significant investment to adequately maintain the facilities condition and sustain sound
learning and working environments. Some facilities may be deemed to be at the end of their
useful life and in need of complete replacement. Typically complete replacement costs are
funded as a separate major capital project through special grant allocations rather than
through investments from operating. For example, C-building (one of the College’s oldest
buildings) according to the London Campus Master Plan is planned for demolition and
replacement. Once that occurs, the cost of UIR for that building will be removed from the
total UIR costs. It is important to note that over the last few years, the Provincial
Government has recognized that this is a growing problem across the province for both
colleges and universities, and periodically has provided one-time-only special purpose
grants for this purpose. Findings from the provincial auditor’s 2010 review will hopefully
raise the profile of this growing challenge at the provincial level, however given the current
fiscal reality for Ontario, it is unlikely there will be significant funding allocations for this
purpose for the next few years.
- 49 -