COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES BUILDING BLOCKS USERS GUIDE. Revised for Survey

Transcription

1 COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES BUILDING BLOCKS USERS GUIDE Revised for Survey As of December 10, 2007

2

3 COUNCIL OF ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES BUILDING BLOCKS USERS GUIDE Revised for Survey For more information, contact: Arlene Levine, Research Analyst Council of Ontario Universities Conseil des universities de l Ontario 180 Dundas Street West, Suite 1100, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Phone: (416) Fax: (416) November, 2007

4

5 November, 2007 Memorandum To: Reporting Officers for the COU Space Inventory 2007 From: Arlene Levine Subject: COU Space Inventory 2007 Enclosed is a copy of the Users Guide and the forms for the 2007 survey. Please note that there have been numerous changes since the 2004 edition. It is strongly recommended that the Users Guide be read in full before completion of your institution s submission. There have been changes to the Space Classification Scheme (particularly categories 3, 4 and 5) and to the COU Space Formulae in categories 4 and 5. As well there have been changes to the forms (particularly forms 3 and 4). The Users Guide itself has been reorganized to improve its ease of use. A discussion of the issues reviewed by the Committee since the 2004 report can be found on page 10 (Issues Reviewed by the Committee 2005 to 2007). The completed survey should be submitted to my attention by February 8, If you are not able to meet this deadline, please let me know. If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Arlene Levine Research Analyst Council of Ontario Universities Encl.

6

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.0 The Users' Guide Work of the Committee on Space Standards & Reporting History Work of the Task Force Calendar of Pertinent Information / Publications Capital and Space SECTION 2 SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED IN THE TRIENNIAL SURVEY 2.0 Introduction Forms and Instructions Space Classification Scheme Input Measures Program Classification Scheme SECTION 3 CALCULATION OF SPACE ENTITLEMENT USING THE COU SPACE FORMULA 3.1 COU Space Formula Worksheet Explanation of the Space Formula SECTION 4 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS SECTION 5 INDEX Table of Contents

8

9 Section 1: INTRODUCTION Page 1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

10

11 Section 1: INTRODUCTION Page 3 INDEX 1.0 The Users' Guide Background Information... 5 The Users Guide Work of the Committee on Space Standards and Reporting Terms of Reference... 9 Issues Reviewed by the Committee... 9 Issues Reviewed by the Committee 2005 to Issues Reviewed by the Committee 2002 to Issues Reviewed by the Committee 1999 to History Development of the COU Space Standards Work of the Task Force Terms of Reference and Methodology Detailed Review of Building Block Space Guidelines Metric Conversion Triennial Report Methods and Data Collection Calendar of Pertinent Information / Publications Capital and Space Age and Quality Overview of Capital Issues Section 1 Index

12

13 Section 1: THE USER S GUIDE Page 5 Background Information The COU space formula and inventory classification system were developed in the 1970s, and have been revised over the years. Major changes were made prior to the survey. In each subsequent survey, updates were made to the survey instrument and definitions to reflect changing space needs. The COU Survey of Physical Facilities takes place during the winter of each third academic year. Data as of November 1 are requested, to coincide with the date for reporting of student enrolment to the Ontario government for operating grants purposes. In the survey, each institution is asked to report current inventory in 20 space categories, and related input measures, such as student enrolment, faculty and staff full-time equivalent positions, laboratory contact hours, and equivalent volumes in the library collection. These input measures are used in the calculation of space requirements for the first 15 of the categories, for which quantitative space factors have been determined. The resulting calculations of space entitlement are used, with the data on existing inventory, in various ways. For example, COU uses the survey data to monitor changing space needs and as part of the case made to government about capital funding requirements for the university system as a whole. Individual institutions may compare their existing inventory with space entitlement under the COU formula in proposals for capital funding for new buildings, and the COU formula (sometimes with modifications) is used in institutional planning, such as estimating the needs of a division for different types of space. Outside agencies and institutions, including universities (e.g. UBC, Dalhousie) and government ministries in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, are also users of Building Blocks. Consultants planning university facilities in Canada and in other countries frequently request COU space publications. The Canadian University Reciprocal Insurance Exchange (CURIE) uses the COU space categories as a basis for determining the value of university facilities for insurance purposes. And, since , the Ontario Ministry has allocated funds for repair and renovation known as the Facilities Renewal Program (FRP) according to each institution's entitlement for space in the 15 formula categories. Section 1.0:Background Information

14 Section 1: THE USER S GUIDE Page 6 The Users Guide The guide has two major functions. One, it is designed to be used in the preparation of the triennial survey conducted by COU. The survey instrument consists of four forms, which must be completed and are presented separately in Section 2, with instructions and related information. They are: Form 1: Actual Space Inventory by Space Category Report the amount and type of existing space by space category. Form 2: Actual Space Inventory by Building Report the amount and type of existing space by building. Form 3: Instructional and Research Laboratory Inventory and Related Input Measures for Categories 2, 3 and 4 Requires the reporting of space inventory information for categories 2 and 3. The form collects data on Laboratory Contact Hours, FTE Faculty, FTE Graduate Students and Other Research Appointments at the departmental level. New for is the inclusion of FTE Non-Academic staff and FTE Research Funded Support Staff in academic departments/faculties to be used to generate space in Category 4. Form 4: Summary of Selected Input Measures Input measures are indicators of the need for space and are used in the calculation of space entitlement according to the COU formula. This form reports data on students, non-academic staff, library staff and library equivalent volumes. The other input measures (faculty, laboratory weekly contact hours and other research appointments) are reported on Form 3. At some institutions, one office may complete all the forms; at others, Forms 1 and 2 may be prepared by a different office than Forms 3 and 4. However it is done, the data required will no doubt come from a number of different offices or data bases at the institution. Section 1.0: The Users Guide

15 Section 1: THE USER S GUIDE Page 7 The Guide's second function, analysis of space requirements apart from the COU survey is set out in Section 3. The section consists of a summary of the COU space standards and the generated space entitlement formula. Individual Ontario universities are not asked to complete the calculations for the triennial submission. During the review of the submissions for , COU may make some slight adjustments to departmental groupings or the formulae which would affect the final result. However, the worksheet can be used internally for a preliminary space formula calculation prior to the publication of the final report after which time any necessary adjustments should be made. In Section 3, the space standards themselves are explained. Each component of the space factor and the assumptions on which the formula is based are defined. As explained in Building Blocks, Volume 1 - "...the primary objective of the [original] Task Force - Space and Utilization was to prepare a building space and utilization guide which could serve as a key element in the development of a formula for the allocation of capital funds to the Ontario Universities." However, it was only in that the formula began to be used directly for the allocation of provincial funds. The Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) uses space entitlement as generated by the formula to determine the allocation of repair and renovation funds under the Facilities Renewal Program (FRP). The space classification scheme, however, has been used since the early 1970s by many institutions as a method for recording and reporting their existing space inventory. Although the space standards were developed to be used at an institutional and system level, they are often used for planning at a divisional level. However, some of the assumptions on which the space standards are based will not be fully applicable at a divisional or departmental level. Once the assumptions are taken into consideration, the standards can usually be adapted for specific use within an institution. Section 1.0: The Users Guide

16

17 Section 1.1: WORK OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPACE STANDARDS AND REPORTING Page 9 Terms of Reference The Committee on Space Standards and Reporting was established in As of 2006 the membership of the committee includes one representative from each member and associate member institution of the Council of Ontario Universities. The terms of reference were expanded to include supporting the Joint Task Force of CSAO/OAPPA (Ontario Association of Physical Plant Administrators). In 2007, the Committee became an affiliate of the Council of Senior Administrative Officers (CSAO). 1. To maintain a continuing review of COU Building Blocks space standards, proposing revisions where appropriate to reflect current conditions in Ontario universities. 2. To provide technical advice to Council and its member institutions and to MTCU regarding the applicability of Building Blocks standards. 3. To oversee the COU triennial survey of physical facilities and ensure that the report is produced in a timely manner. 4. To support the work of the Joint Task Force of CSAO/OAPPA in areas of deferred maintenance and maintenance of capital physical infrastructure. 5. To advise to the Council of Ontario Universities generally in matters of university space requirements and space costs. 6. To report on a regular basis to the Council of Ontario Universities on the activities of the Committee. Issues Reviewed by the Committee The Committee on Space Standards and Reporting reviews issues such as: study of classroom utilization in Ontario universities (joint project with the Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities) examination of the Building Block's formula in relation to university space standards in other North American jurisdictions developing space guidelines for performance oriented discipline (Music, Film, Dance, etc.) impact of computing on several space categories applicability of the COU guidelines for institutions without a full range of programs and facilities Section 1.1: Terms of Reference, Issues Reviewed by the Committee

18 Section 1.1: WORK OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPACE STANDARDS AND REPORTING Page 10 In late 1991, the Ontario Ministry instructed COU to include federated and affiliated colleges in the triennial survey and report. The survey report was updated to include data from federated and affiliated institutions as part of the report for their constituent universities. The COU space standards are seen as a living document. The Committee continually compares COU standards to other jurisdictions to ensure that the COU standards remain up to date. At this point in time, the Committee is conducting ongoing analyses to ensure that the space factors in such areas as classrooms, laboratories, faculty and support space and libraries are up to date. Issues Reviewed by the Committee: 2005 to 2007 Category 3: Research Laboratory Space (Graduate & Faculty) Category 3.3 Laboratory Research Office space was moved to Category 4.2 Research Support Office space. Category 4 Academic Departmental Offices and Related Space Subcategory 4.1 was changed to Academic Offices to reflect the inclusion of offices for all academic staff professors emeriti, visiting professors etc. In order to correctly identify office-type space used for research, departmental research support staff offices/workspaces were moved to Category 4.2 from Category 3.3. Category 5: Library Facilities & Campus Study Space A major reworking of this category was undertaken with the assistance of the Ontario Council of University Librarians (OCUL). Detailed reviews and analyses of volume counts and calculation of equivalent volumes were undertaken and new equivalencies have been established that more adequately reflect current stack standards. For more details on the changes, see pages and It was also determined that study space should be identified as either under the jurisdiction of the institution s library system or accommodated in non library space. These spaces would be classified separately and would include computer equipped study space. The methodology used in calculating library staff space and library support space is under review. Commencing this year, institutions are asked to report library FTE staff counts. In addition, the Committee determined that all study spaces should be counted on the basis of two (2) sq m per station regardless of the type of space. Section 1.1: Issues Reviewed by the Committee: 2005 to

19 Section 1.1: WORK OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPACE STANDARDS AND REPORTING Page 11 Issues Reviewed by the Committee: 2002 to 2004 Commencing with the 2004 Report, the following changes were made: Academic and Administrative Office Support space The space factor for academic support space was changed from 30% to 25%; and the space factor for administrative office support space was changed from 30% to 50%. Research space The Committee reviewed research space as to the currency of space factors and program classification. Results: changes made to program classification scheme (see below); no change to the space factors. Laboratory Research Office space (new category) Technicians, professional staff, including those conducting research, and upper year undergraduate students who perform the work of graduate students will now be reported under this new category. Faculty Office space The Committee reviewed the space factor for FTE Faculty (13 NASM), comparing it to other jurisdictions and agreed that it is still appropriate. Library / Learning Commons / Computing space The Committee is continuing to work to ensure that this changing category of space is reporting correctly. Program Classification Scheme Man/Environment studies Physical; changed from Group C to Group D Household Science & Related; changed from Group D to Group C Design, Systems Engineering; changed from Group C to Group D Section 1: Issues Reviewed by the Committee: 2002 to

20 Section 1.1: WORK OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPACE STANDARDS AND REPORTING Page 12 Issues Reviewed by the Committee: 1999 to 2001 Commencing with the 2001 report, the following changes were made: Dean s Office The inventory for Dean s office (which was previously reported under Category 10: administrative office space)), is now reported under Category 4: academic office space. Classroom formula calculation The assumptions used in the classroom input measure were updated to reflect the way students are being taught today. As a result, (1) the station size increased from 1.4 NASM to 1.7 NASM, (2) the utilization rate increased from 62% to 65%, and (3) the number of hours per week that a classroom is expected to be used, increased from 30 to 34 (to account for evening classes and the lengthening of the teaching day). As a result, the space factor for classrooms changed from 1.2 NASM to 1.23 NASM. Category 5 Category 5 (Library and Study Space) has been renamed Campus Study Space & Library Facilities to reflect more accurately how this space is being utilized. Subcategory 12.3 (Student Computer Rooms) is now reported in Category 5 under Subcategory 5.4 (Computer-Equipped Study Space). This type of space is defined as campus-wide electronically equipped computer rooms available for students for study. Other Research Appointments Other Research Appointments are included in the Faculty supplement calculation, category 4.2. Also technicians, if they occupy offices, are counted in category 4.4. Section 1.1: Issues Reviewed by the Committee: 1999 to

21 Section 1.2: HISTORY Page 13 Development of the COU Space Standards In 1971, the Council of Ontario Universities established a number of task forces to examine questions relating to capital funding and the utilization of physical facilities within the Ontario universities. The Task Force - Space and Utilization was charged with developing and testing a space and utilization guide. Two other task forces studied the space needs of education and the health sciences. In 1972, the three task forces published their reports in Volumes 1, 2 and 3 respectively, of the Building Blocks Series. A fourth task force studied the various aspects of building costs, and published its findings in Building Blocks Volumes 4 and 5, thus completing the two major elements of a capital formula, space and cost. In Building Blocks, Volume 1, Report of the Task Force - Space Utilization described the space categories to be examined and supplied a methodology to be used in deriving standards, as well as examining the requirements of all discipline groups covered by the interim capital formula. The testing and revision of the formulas were carried out in five existing Ontario universities. The Committee on Capital Financing, in November 1972, established a Standing Subcommittee to continue the work begun by the task forces and in particular, to receive comments from all of the Ontario universities with respect to the recommendations contained in the Building Blocks Volumes 1, 2 and 3. The Subcommittee was to revise the space factors as necessary and keep the Building Blocks guidelines up to date. The report of the Subcommittee presented in Building Blocks, Volume 6 (1978) was essentially a supplement to volume 1 of the Building Blocks Series. It did not attempt to duplicate the extensive research into other space formulae, nor repeat the discourse on space standards and the development of space utilization factors that is contained in Volume 1. Volume 6 had two parts: a general commentary on the work of the Subcommittee and the measures taken to examine and accommodate the suggestions and comments that had been received from the universities; and a more detailed examination of each space category in terms of the data collected, the input measures used and the rationale for the space factors that had been adopted. Section 1.2: Development of the COU Space Standards

22

23 Section 1.3: WORK OF THE TASK FORCE Page 15 Terms of Reference and Methodology The Task Force to Review COU Space Standards was established in December 1984 as a technical support group for the Operating Grants Subcommittee on Capital Funding and Space. Its terms of reference were to assist the Subcommittee by: 1. conducting a detailed review of the Building Blocks space guidelines and input measures, and revising them where appropriate to reflect current teaching and research conditions; 2. converting the space guidelines to metric measure; and 3. reviewing all aspects of data collection and reporting procedures for the triennial survey of university facilities. Since the 1985 review was intended to update, rather than to supersede, the space standards approved by COU in 1978, it was assumed by the Task Force that readers wishing a full explanation of the development of the standards and the components of each space factor would consult Building Blocks Volume 1 and 6. Detailed Review of Building Block Space Guidelines Like the Subcommittee that preceded it, the 1985 Task Force accepted the technological approach described in detail in Building Blocks Volume 1. The three components, the space classification scheme, the input measures and the space utilization factors were reviewed. The ten input measures which had been adopted in Building Blocks Volume 1, were reduced to five in Volume 6: FFTE undergraduates, FTE graduates, FTE faculty, lab contact hours and equivalent volumes. The 1985 Task Force added three more: FTE other research appointments; FTE non-academic office staff, and total net assignable inventory (categories 1-15 plus 17-20). The third component, the space factors, was reviewed using data gathered for the COU Inventory of Physical Facilities. All proposed changes were then verified when data from the survey had been processed. Section 1.3: Terms of Reference and Methodology, Review of Guidelines

24 Section 1.3: WORK OF THE TASK FORCE Page 16 The Task Force conducted a literature search to see if new methods for calculating space requirements had been developed in other jurisdictions, determined that the standards as revised by the 1985 Task Force remained the best available mechanism for determining space requirements for the Ontario universities. Metric Conversion The Task Force's second term of reference required conversion of the space factors to metric units. In some cases this involved a direct conversion of imperial units. Where rounding was needed, it was done in accordance with the Task Force's assessment of the need for increasing or reducing the amount of space that should be generated in that category. There was no attempt to convert the basic spatial units (seat area, lab bench area, etc.) from which the space factors are derived, since the rationale employed was originally developed in imperial units. Triennial Report Methods and Data Collection The third term of reference had as its aim the improvement of data collection and reporting procedures for the triennial space survey. The Task Force attempted to clarified the definitions of input measures and the glossary employed in the space classification scheme. Section 1.3: Metric Conversion, Triennial Report

25 Section 1.4: CALENDAR OF PERTINENT INFORMATION/PUBLICATIONS Page Ontario universities received capital monies through a project approval procedure. Oct. 2, 1967 Dec Joint Capital Studies Committee began work to develop a capital formula to incorporate many of the features sought in the operating grants formula: objectivity and equity, consistent standards, the opportunity for the provincial government to exert a primary control over its total obligation, and an incentive for each institution to allocate and manage its resources. A contract was awarded to Taylor, Lieberfeld and Heldman to do a physical inventory and utilization study of all Ontario universities Interim capital formula was derived. Committee on University Affairs stated that the province was entering an era when capital resources would become scarcer. Aug July 1971 COU published a draft report with comments and guidelines on space standards that might be incorporated in a space formula. The Committee on Capital Financing, with the approval of COU, opted to take action in the development of a proposal for a capital formula. Four Task Forces were established: Task Force - Space and Utilization: This Task Force was asked to prepare a space and utilization guide for the submission to the COU Committee on Capital Financing with a view to the guide being incorporated with appropriate cost data in a capital funds allocation system. Membership included five universities: Brock, Carleton, Guelph, McMaster and Queen s Published: Building Blocks: Background Studies on the Development of a Capital Formula for Ontario. Volume 1: Report of the Task Force-Space and Utilization (# 72-9) Published: Building Blocks: Volume II: Report of the Task Force-Space for Education. July (#72-11) Task Force Health Sciences (Capital) Published: Building Blocks: Volume III: Report of the Task Force- Space for Health Sciences. Nov (#72-10) Section 1.4: Calendar of Pertinent Information / Publications

26 Section 1.4: CALENDAR OF PERTINENT INFORMATION/PUBLICATIONS Page (cont d) Task Force Building Costs: This Task Force was to study and comment on the past costs and quality of university construction and to provide appropriate cost multipliers. Published: Building Blocks: Volume IV: Report of the Task Force-Building Costs. July (#72-12) Published: Building Blocks: Supplement to Volume IV: Elemental Cost Analysis and Performance and Statistical Data tables (#72-12S) Spring 1972 Summary Report, Ontario Universities Physical Resources Study (TLH) Report to the Joint Sub-Committee on Capital Studies of the Committee of Presidents of the Universities of Ontario and the Committee on University Affairs Interim Capital Funding Formula was cancelled. Nov Nov April 1974 Dec Committee of Capital Financing established a Standing Subcommittee to continue the work begun by the task forces, particularly with respect to recommendations in Building Blocks, Volumes 1, 2 and 3. Phase II of the building cost study resulted in: Published: Building Blocks: Volume V: Report of the Task Force-Building Life Costs (#74-1) Stemming from recommendations in Building Blocks, Volume 5, COU agenda included a Proposal for the Establishment of a Reporting System for Annual Costs of Operating and Maintaining Ontario University Buildings. Report of the Standing Sub-Committee to the Committee on Capital Financing concerning revisions to Building Blocks Published: Building Blocks: Volume VI: Report of the Subcommittee-Revisions to Building Blocks (#78-12). This report presents in a single volume the most recent recommendations previously contained in Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of Building Blocks. The first triennial survey ( ) is also published. Section 1.4: Calendar of Pertinent Information / Publications

27 Section 1.4: CALENDAR OF PERTINENT INFORMATION/PUBLICATIONS Page 19 Dec (cont d) Highlights: Ten input measures were reduced to five: FTE undergraduates, FTE graduates, FTE faculty, Lab contact hours and Library volumes. All fourteen universities were included in the survey rather than just the original five. Separate sub-categories for Instructional Office were introduced. Variable space factors for Laboratories were adopted to reflect the needs of different disciplines. July 1981 July 1984 Dec Published: Inventory of Physical Facilities of Ontario Universities (#81-7) Published: Inventory of Physical Facilities of Ontario Universities (#84-5) Task Force to Review COU Space Standards was struck The COU space formula began to be used directly for the allocation of provincial funds. The Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) now uses space entitlement as generated by the formula to determine the allocation of repair and renovation funds under the Facilities Renewal Program. Nov Jan The COU Standing Committee on Space Standards and Reporting was established. Future consideration was to be given to the question of eligibility of federated and affiliated institutions for capital funding. Published: Building Blocks: Volume VII: The Final Report of the Task Force to Review COU Space Standards triennial survey published (#88-1). Section 1.4: Calendar of Pertinent Information / Publications

28 Section 1.4: CALENDAR OF PERTINENT INFORMATION/PUBLICATIONS Page 20 Jan (cont d) Highlights: Space factors were converted to metric units. Five input measures were increased to eight: added FTE non-faculty research appointments; FTE non-academic office staff; and total assignable space. Instructional labs: some changes were made to the discipline groups. Research: non-faculty researchers weighted at 50%; discipline group changes. Office: non-academic office staff included as a new input measure. Plant Maintenance appears as a separate category. Changes to formula for Library and Athletics The Committee on Space Standards and Reporting was created. It replaced the Task Force on COU Space Standards. Feb Feb A Background Paper Prepared for the Joint Working Group: University Space Standards in North America. Report of the Joint Working Group on University Space Utilization: Classroom Space Utilization in Ontario Universities, The review of classroom space and its utilization was carried out to satisfy a concern expressed by the Ontario Ministry that classrooms were underutilised and that the COU space guidelines were too generous. Data from a sample of Ontario Universities showed that the universities were meeting or exceeding the hours of use per week and percentage of seats occupied in the classroom space factor, and the average area for the different furniture types currently in use was also consistent with the assumption in the formula. The survey also showed that extensive use during the evening was occurring in many institutions. Jan March 1991 Published: Inventory of Physical Facilities of Ontario Universities, (#91-1) Federated and affiliated Colleges to be included in the triennial survey. Section 1.4: Calendar of Pertinent Information / Publications

29 Section 1.4: CALENDAR OF PERTINENT INFORMATION/PUBLICATIONS Page Published: COU Building Blocks-Users Guide (first edition) Dec July 1997 Published: Inventory of Physical Facilities of Ontario Universities, (#93-5) Published: Inventory of Physical Facilities of Ontario Universities, (#330) 1997 The Committee reviewed the library volume equivalencies used in the generation of stack space entitlement. With the assistance of OCUL, the Committee adopted the methodology used by Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) Provided background information and scenarios for PriceWaterhouseCoopers to examine the impact of the anticipated increase of students on the existing physical facilities of Ontario universities A Joint Working Group was established consisting of representatives from OAPPA (physical plant administrators), CSAO (senior administrative officers) and the Committee on Space Standards to develop a facilities condition assessment program Provided input to the Investing in Students Task Force. The Task Force was established to advise the Minister on ways to ensure that public funds supporting postsecondary education are directed at providing the highest quality of education while ensuring access for students, affordability and accountability. The Inventory report was listed as an example of collaborative practices in facilities, maintenance and equipment. April 2000 Published: Inventory of Physical Facilities of Ontario Universities, (#670) Commencing with the report, the FTE enrolment figures include ineligible students (for the purpose of provincial funding) for both graduate and undergraduate students. October 2000 The Committee conducted a survey to determine the extent to which the current stock of classrooms had the capability of handling year 2000 technology. The Committee was concerned that universities may not be equipped to handle the increase of students. Section 1.4: Calendar of Pertinent Information / Publications

30 Section 1.4: CALENDAR OF PERTINENT INFORMATION/PUBLICATIONS Page 22 January 2003 Published: Inventory of Physical Facilities of Ontario Universities, (#734) Dec 2005 Published: Inventory of Physical Facilities of Ontario Universities, (#779) 2007 The Committee on Space Standards and Reporting worked with representatives from OCUL (Ontario Council of University Libraries) to review and update library stack, study and support space standards. Section 1.4: Calendar of Pertinent Information / Publications

31 Section 1.5: CAPITAL AND SPACE Page 23 Age and Quality The age or condition of space is not to be held as a consideration when reporting space in the classification scheme. While it is agreed that such considerations may have considerable impact on the efficiency or usability of facilities, it was felt that these effects lie outside the purposes of the Space Committee. This Committee looks at space standards; quality/condition factors are handled by the Council of Senior Administrative Officers (CSAO) and the Ontario Association of Physical Plant Administrators (OAPPA). In 1999 a Joint Task Force of CSAO and OAPPA, including representation from the Committee on Space Standards and Reporting, was struck to oversee the implementation of the Facilities Condition Assessment Program. All Ontario universities and colleges agreed to purchase the same software from Vanderweil Facilities Advisors (VFA) in a commitment to undertake a comprehensive facility audit. The goal of this audit is to provide accurate data on the condition of existing buildings. Further information is provided below. Overview of Capital Issues SuperBuild Growth Fund In its May 1999 budget, as part of a new SuperBuild Growth Fund initiative, the Government of Ontario announced $742 million for universities and colleges to support construction of new classrooms, labs, and other facilities. The capital funding was in recognition of the significant increase expected in the demand for postsecondary education over the next decade, and the growing deferred maintenance requirement. In the May 2000 budget, the Ontario government announced a further $286 million for enhancement initiatives. In July 2000, the government announced details of a $95 million investment for modernization and renewal that will enable the province s colleges and universities to upgrade their existing facilities. In May 2001, the government allocated $100 million to address maintenance costs incurred at colleges and universities. In April 2003, the government announced a new round of SuperBuild allocations totalling $180.2 million to address the need for more space to accommodate higher-than-expected postsecondary enrolment. Section 1.5: Age and Quality, Overview of Capital Issues

32 Section 1.5: CAPITAL AND SPACE Page 24 The SuperBuild Commitments therefore totalled $1, million. This infusion of capital will result in a total of 98,934 new student spaces: 52,077 for universities (plus 2,870 at UOIT), 33,435 for colleges, and 10,552 for joint projects between universities and colleges. Facilities Condition Assessment Program In 1999, the COU Joint Task Force of CSAO and OAPPA, with representation from the COU Committee on Space Standards and Reporting, was struck to oversee the implementation of the Facilities Condition Assessment Program. Ontario universities collaboratively purchased a software package developed by Vanderweil Facilities Advisors (VFA), a database application for facility management. The implementation of the Facility Condition Assessment Program using a consistent software program will ensure that Ontario s universities will be better able to identify the true costs of deferred maintenance and measure the effects of funding aimed at addressing those costs. By moving to a common software program the university community will be in a position to provide useful system wide analysis of deferred maintenance liabilities and the effects of added investment by the province and institutions. Institutions will be able to provide consistent, comparable and reliable data on an annual basis. In March 2007, the Joint Task Force produced their 6 th annual report Facilities Condition Assessment Program as of March, Institutions were required to audit 20% of their facilities annually; this report covers 98% of the buildings in Ontario universities. The report is available on COU s website at Section 1.5: Facilities Condition Assessment Program

33 Section 2: SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED IN THE TRIENNIAL SURVEY Page 25 SECTION 2 SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED IN THE TRIENNIAL SURVEY

34

35 Section 2: SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED IN THE TRIENNIAL SURVEY Page 27 INDEX 2.0 INTRODUCTION Overall Purpose of the COU Survey of Physical Facilities FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS Form 1: Actual Space Inventory by Space Category Instructions for Completing Form Form 2: Actual Space Inventory by Building Instructions for Completing Form Form 3: Instructional and Research Laboratory Inventory and Related Input Measures for Categories 2, 3 and Instructions for Completing Form Form 4: Summary of Selected Input Measures Instructions for Completing Form Form 4A: Library Volume Counts Instructions for Completing Form 4A SPACE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME Notes Definitions of Space Categories Glossary Section 2: Index

36 Section 2: SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED IN THE TRIENNIAL SURVEY Page INPUT MEASURES (DEFINITIONS) List of Input Measures FTE Students Graduate Students (FTE) Laboratory Weekly Contact Hour FTE Faculty Other Research Appointments FTE Non-Academic Office Staff Total Net Assignable Inventory Library Collections (equivalent volumes) PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION SCHEME Program Classification Scheme Section 2: Index

37 Section 2.0: INTRODUCTION Page 29 Overall Purpose of the COU Survey of Physical Facilities Since the mid-seventies, the Council of Ontario Universities has conducted a series of triennial surveys using the COU space standards. The data on actual space inventory at each COU member institution and the activity data (input measures) which are used to determine space requirements as generated by the COU space formula are used in a number of ways: by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, for the allocation of funding for repair and renovation; by individual institutions, in proposals for capital funding for new buildings and in internal planning (sometimes with modifications to the formula); by COU, to monitor changing space needs and as part of the case made to government about capital funding requirements for the university system as a whole. The triennial survey is conducted during the winter of each third academic year. Data as of November 1 are requested, to coincide with the date for reporting of student enrolment to the Ontario government for operating grants purposes. The present survey instrument consists of four forms: Form 1: Actual Space Inventory by Space Category Form 2: Actual Space Inventory by Building Form 3: Instructional and Research Laboratory Inventory and Related Input Measures for Categories 2, 3 and 4 Form 4: Summary of Selected Input Measures Form 4A: Library Volume Counts Institutional responses are processed and analysed by the COU Research, Analysis and Policy Division and a summary report is issued. The forms used for the survey have been modified over the years. The present instrument consists of the four forms used as the basis of organization for this guide. Readers who are not responsible for preparation of responses for the COU survey may find the forms helpful in gaining a better understanding of the COU formula and in conducting analyses of space requirements apart from the triennial survey. Section 2.0: Overall Purpose of the COU Survey of Physical Facilities

38

39 Section 2.0: INTRODUCTION Page 31 INDEX Form 1: Actual Space Inventory by Space Category Form Instructions for Completing Form Form 2: Actual Space Inventory by Building Form Instructions for Completing Form Form 3: Instructional and Research Laboratory Inventory and Related Input Measures for Categories 2, 3 and 4 Form Instructions for Completing Form Form 4: Summary of Selected Input Measures Form Instructions for Completing Form Form 4A: Library Volume Counts Form 4A Instructions for Completing Form 4A Section 2.1: Forms and Instructions Index

40

41 Section 2.1: FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS Page 33 ACTUAL SPACE INVENTORY BY SPACE CATEGORY As of November 1, 2007 FORM 1 OF 4 Institution: CATEGORY 1.0 CLASSROOM FACILITIES 1.1 Tiered classroom 1.2 Non tiered classroom 1.3 Classroom service space 2.0 LABORATORY UNDERGRADUATE Scheduled class laboratory 2.2 Unscheduled class laboratory 2.3 Laboratory (undergraduate) support 3.0 RESEARCH LABORATORY SPACE Research Laboratory space 3.2 Research (graduate & faculty) support space 3.3 IN 2007, INCLUDED IN CATEGORY ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES AND RELATED SPACE 4.1 Academic offices 4.2 Research Office / project space 4.3 Graduate student offices 4.4 Departmental administrative and support staff offices 4.5 Office support space 5.0 LIBRARY FACILITIES & CAMPUS STUDY SPACE 5.1 Library Collection space 5.2 Library / Office space 5.3 Library Support space 5.4 Study Space under the Jurisdiction of the Univ Lib System 5.5 Study Space not under the Jurisdiction of Univ Lib System 6.0 RECREATION / ATHLETIC SPACE 6.1 Athletic activity areas 6.2 Athletic seating areas 6.3 Athletic service space 7.0 FOOD FACILITIES 7.1 Food facilities 7.2 Food facilities services Area AREA NASM Subtotal Identifies categories that have changed in See revised Space Categories definitions, pages 63 to 101 for more detail. Section 2.1: Form

42 Section 2.1: FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS Page 34 ACTUAL SPACE INVENTORY BY SPACE CATEGORY As of November 1, 2007 FORM 1 OF 4 Institution: CATEGORY 8.0 BOOKSTORE AND OTHER MERCHANDISING FACILITIES 8.1 Bookstore/Merchandising 9.0 PLANT MAINTENANCE 9.1 Plant Maintenance 10.0 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND RELATED 10.1 Administrative office areas 10.2 Administrative office support space 11.0 AUDIO VISUAL / TELEVISION FACILITIES 11.1 AV / TV facilities 12.0 CENTRAL SERVICES 12.1 Computing facilities 12.2 Other central services 13.0 HEALTH SERVICE FACILITIES 13.1 Health service facilities 14.0 COMMON USE AND STUDENT ACTIVITY SPACE 14.1 Student offices and support space 14.2 Recreational facilities and service 14.3 Lounge and lounge service 15.0 ASSEMBLY AND EXHIBITION FACILITIES 15.1 Assembly facilities 15.2 Exhibition facilities SUBTOTAL FORMULA AREAS 3 (sum of 1.0 to 15.0) Area AREA NASM Subtotal Section 2.1: Form

43 Section 2.1: FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS Page 35 ACTUAL SPACE INVENTORY BY SPACE CATEGORY As of November 1, 2007 FORM 1 OF 4 Institution: CATEGORY 16.0 NON ASSIGNABLE (NSM) 16.1 Central utility plant 16.2 Other non assignable areas 16.3 Inactive unassignable (see classification notes) 16.4 Parking structures 17.0 RESIDENTIAL SPACE 17.1 Residence living space 17.2 Residence service space 18.0 ANIMAL SPACE 18.1 Specialized central animal areas 18.2 Farm type animal areas 19.0 OTHER UNIVERSITY FACILITIES 19.1 Day care facilities 19.2 Rifle ranges and military training 19.3 Extra university merchandising facilities 19.4 Demonstration schools 19.5 Inactive unassignable (see classification notes) 19.6 Non instit. agencies occupying university space 19.7 Instructional service activities to external community 20.0 HEALTH SCIENCE CLINICAL FACILITIES 20.1 Health Science clinical facilities TOTAL NON FORMULA AREAS 4 (sum of 17.0 to 20.0) TOTAL FORMULA AND NON FORMULA AREAS (exclude Cat. 16) Area AREA NASM Subtotal 1 Sum of 2.0 Laboratory Undergraduate. It should equal the sum of CAT. 2 NASM on Form 3. 2 Sum of 3.0 Research Laboratory (graduate and faculty). It should equal the sum of CAT. 3 NASM on Form 3. 3 Should agree with the sum of NASM 1 15 column on Form 2. 4 Should agree with the sum of NASM column on Form 2. Section 2.1: Form

44

45 Section 2.1: FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS Page 37 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM 1 Form 1 is used to report an institution's actual inventory in net assignable square metres for each of the twenty COU space categories and subcategories. In preparing the data for Form 1, reference should be made to pages 55 to 62, for explanations of the measurement of space inventory and definitions of area terms, such as NASM. The space categories are defined in pages 63 to 101. The form itself is largely self-explanatory. Areas for subcategories are entered in the left-hand column and subtotals for each category in the right-hand column. Separate totals are calculated for categories in the COU space formula (1-15); for non-formula categories (17-20) and for the total. Category 16 (Non-Assignable) is not included in either subtotal nor in the total. Section 2.1: Instructions for Completing Form

46

47 Section 2.1: FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS Page 39 ACTUAL SPACE INVENTORY BY BUILDING As of November 1, 2007 FORM 2 OF 4 Institution: Code Building Name (1) Year (2) NASM (3) NASM 16 2 (4) NASM (5) Scheduled for Demolition (6) Rentals 4 (7) Gross Sq. Metres (8) Under Construction (9) TOTAL 1 The column sum of NASM 1 15 should agree with the Subtotal Formula Areas figure on Form 1. 2 The column sum of NASM 16 should agree with the sum of 16.0 Non-Assignable on Form 1. 3 The column sum of NASM should agree with the Subtotal Non Formula Areas figure on Form 1. 4 The figures reported should refer to NASM 1 15 figures only. Commencing in 2007, the column, Building Use, has been deleted. Section 2.1: Form

48

49 Section 2.1: FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS Page 41 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM 2 (1) Building Name Use building name, street address or some other unique identifier. (1a) Building Use Not required in (2) Year Report the year of original construction completion. If part of a building has undergone major renovation* work (ie. architectural, mechanical and electrical space renewal, a major renewal that effectively reduces the age of the building or a part of the building), identify the year that the renovation was completed and identify the NASM of the area renovated, subtracted from the original building NASM. * Renovation, as defined by MTCU is, building construction activities that replace and/or upgrade facilities, or their components that have reached the end of their economic life, have failed prematurely or are required for code compliance. Upon completion of the renovation the facilities could be considered equivalent to new construction. (3) NASM 1-15 The total net assignable square metres reported here should equal the total for categories 1-15 shown on Form 1 of the present update. For definition of NASM, refer to pages 55 to 62. For definition of space categories, refer pages 63 to 101. Section 2.1: Instructions for Completing Form

50 Section 2.1: FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS Page 42 (4) NASM 16 The total net assignable square metres reported here should equal the total for category 16 shown on Form 1 of the present update. For definition of NASM, refer pages 55 to 62. For definition of space categories, refer to pages 63 to 101. (5) NASM The total net assignable square metres reported here should equal the total for categories shown on Form 1 of the present update. For definition of NASM, refer to pages 55 to 62. For definition of space categories, refer to pages 63 to 101. (6) Scheduled For Demolition If you are presently planning to demolish space reported under the NASM 1-15 column, enter yes in this column. (7) Rentals For buildings that the institution rents for institutional functions, report the amount of space that is reported in the NASM 1-15 column. Section 2.1: Instructions for Completing Form

51 Section 2.1: FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS Page 43 (8) Gross Square Metres Gross Area should be construed to mean the sum of the floor areas included within the outside faces of exterior walls for all stories, or areas, which have floor surfaces. For further details, refer to page 57 Gross Area. The data reported here will be compared to the data reported under the VFA software. Please ensure that the data is reported consistently. (9) Under Construction On the last column of Form 2, report the total GSM (gross square metres) of new buildings under construction that are expected to be occupied within the next three years. Include buildings that have gone to tender and for which a contract has been signed. (in previous surveys, the total NASM was requested). Section 2.1: Instructions for Completing Form

52

53 Section 2.1: FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS Page 45 INSTRUCTIONAL AND RESEARCH LABORATORY INVENTORY AND INPUT MEASURES FOR CATEGORIES 2, 3 AND 4 As of November 1, 2007 Institution: FORM 3 OF 4 USIS Code (1) Department Name (2) Group W Z (3) Cat. 2 NASM 1 (4) Contact Hours (5) Group A E (6) Cat. 3 NASM 2 (7) Faculty (FTE) (8) Other Research Appointments 3 (9) Post Doctoral Fellows (FTE) Research Associates (FTE) Graduate Students (FTE) (10) Departmental Staff (FTE) requiring office space 4 (11) Non Academic Staff: Operating Research Funded Support Staff TOTAL 1 Sum of Cat. 2 NASM should equal the sum of 2.0 Laboratory Undergraduate on Form 1. 2 Sum of Cat. 3 NASM should equal the sum of 3.0 Laboratory Graduate on Form 1. 3 Report the breakdown of Other Research Appointments (Post Doctoral Fellows and FTE Research Associates). 4 Report the breakdown of Departmental Staff (Operating and Research) requiring office space. New for 2007 Section 2.1: Form

54

55 Section 2.1: FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS Page 47 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM 3 Form 3 asks for a report by department or discipline of space inventory and activity measures for each of the laboratory categories: 2.0: Laboratory - Undergraduate and 3.0: Research Laboratory space (Graduate & Faculty). (1, 2) USIS Code, Department Name Report the USIS code for the department name listed in Column 2. For a listing of codes, refer to page 135 or the MTCU USER manual (Element 260 Specialization or Major Field of Study). (3) Group W-Z Enter the program group for Category 2.0 for each department name. Refer to the Program Classification Scheme on page 135. (4) Cat. 2 NASM Report the actual inventory for instructional labs. (5) Contact Hours Refer to Laboratory Weekly Student Contact Hours page 126. (6) Group A-E Enter the program group for Category 3.0 for each department name. Refer to the Program Classification Scheme on page 135. (7) Cat. 3 NASM Report the actual inventory for research (graduate & faculty) labs. (8) FTE Faculty Refer to FTE Faculty on page 127. (9) Other Research Appointments Report the number of FTE Post-Doctoral Fellows and FTE Research Associates separately. Refer to Other Research Appointments on page 127. (10) Graduate Students (FTE) Refer to FTE Students on page 125. (11) Departmental Staff Non-Academic and Research Support Staff (FTE) Report the number of FTE staff requiring office space, paid through Operating funds and the FTE research support staff paid through research funds. Refer to FTE Departmental Office Staff on page 128. Section 2.1: Instructions for Completing Form