FINAL BILL REPORT
2ESHB 2151
C 8 L 03 E1
Synopsis as Enacted
Brief Description: Prioritizing proposed higher education capital projects.
Sponsors: By House Committee on Capital Budget (originally sponsored by Representatives Alexander, Dunshee, Sommers, Cox and Sehlin).
House Committee on Capital Budget
Senate Committee on Ways & Means
Background:
The state adopts a biennial Capital Budget each odd-numbered year, appropriating moneys for a variety of capital projects and programs. In preparation for this budget, state agencies and higher education institutions prepare and submit budget requests to the Governor's Office. The Governor then submits a budget request to the Legislature shortly before the legislative session.
A significant portion of Capital Budget appropriations goes to higher education institutions. There are six four-year institutions: The University of Washington, Washington State University, Central Washington University, Eastern Washington University, The Evergreen State College, and Western Washington University. These institutions are governed by regents or trustees, who have a significant amount of autonomy in the governance of their institutions. The 34 community and technical colleges are governed by the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC). Each of the six four-year institutions and the SBCTC provide Capital Budget requests for each biennium to the Governor's Office and the Legislature.
Capital Budget appropriations for higher education institutions typically fall into one of three categories: 1) providing access for students; 2) facility preservation and renovation; and 3) institutional mission. A recent study by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) found that there is a significant backlog of facility infrastructure projects throughout higher education institutions. The report of the 2002 Capital Budget Interim Workgroup on Higher Education Facilities recommended that for the 2003-05 biennium priority be given to: 1) critical preservation projects at all institutions; and 2) providing access at the community and technical colleges. Preservation/renovation projects that were necessary for program suitability and mission at all institutions were also highlighted by the workgroup.
The Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) provides a ranking of projects by category. Projects within a category, such as preservation, are not prioritized by the HECB, but are listed alphabetically by institution and then by institutional priority. This list includes the community and technical colleges as well as the four-year institutions. The SBCTC ranks all of its recommended projects in priority order based on criteria that it developed with the 34 community and technical colleges.
Summary:
Beginning with the 2005-2007 Capital Budget submittal, the four-year institutions and the two-year institutions will submit separate prioritized lists of major projects. The two-year institutions' list will be prepared by the SBCTC. The four-year list will be prepared by the four-year institutions in consultation with the Council of Presidents and the HECB. The HECB will generate the four-year list if the four-year institutions are unable to agree to a list or to complete the approval process. Beginning with the 2005-2007 Capital Budget submittal, the HECB will submit its Capital Budget recommendations and the separate two-year and four-year prioritized project lists to the Office of Financial Management (OFM).
For ranking repairs and renovations to existing systems, consideration must be given to the age and condition of buildings, program-suitability of the facility, and the utilization of the facility. For ranking new facilities, consideration must be given to existing capacity, space utilization levels, and projected enrollment and staffing. Minor works projects may be aggregated into priority categories.
In developing the rating/ranking of projects, the HECB must be provided with available information by higher education institutions, the OFM, and the JLARC. The HECB may also use independent service providers.
Votes on Final Passage:
House 98 0
First Special Session
House 91 1
Senate 45 2
Effective: September 9, 2003