Facilities Master Plan 20210
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Facilities Master Plan
BOULDER
2021
1
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
City of Boulder, 2021
2
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
CONTENTS
OUR BUILT FUTURE ................................................................................................................. 5
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 6
Purpose of the Plan ................................................................................................................................ 8
Related Plans and Policies ..................................................................................................................... 10
Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................................. 13
Resilient .............................................................................................................................................................. 14
Sustainable ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Accessible and Equitable .................................................................................................................................... 16
Experiential ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Economical ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Functional........................................................................................................................................................... 19
Outreach and Engagement .................................................................................................................... 20
WHERE WE ARE TODAY ......................................................................................................... 22
Building Portfolio .................................................................................................................................. 23
Core Service Delivery ............................................................................................................................ 26
Building Portfolio Analysis .................................................................................................................... 27
Building Life Cycles ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Equipment Renewal and Replacement Forecasting .......................................................................................... 31
Facilities Condition Index ................................................................................................................................... 32
What FCI Looks Like ........................................................................................................................................... 33
City Building Portfolio FCI ................................................................................................................................... 34
Asset Sustainability Target ................................................................................................................................. 35
Unfunded Liability .............................................................................................................................................. 35
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) ........................................................................................................................... 36
Facility Renewal Funding .................................................................................................................................... 37
How Much is Required? ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Current Funding Approach in Buildings ............................................................................................................. 38
Building Carbon Use ........................................................................................................................................... 40
Prioritizing Social Responsibility ......................................................................................................................... 44
Guiding Principles Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 45
Summary of Building Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 46
CHARTING A NEW COURSE .................................................................................................... 47
Decision Framework ............................................................................................................................. 48
Key Initiatives ....................................................................................................................................... 52
Maintain Well ..................................................................................................................................................... 52
Consolidate Services .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Summary of Funding Priorities ........................................................................................................................... 66
Strategic Actions ................................................................................................................................... 68
Targeted Improvements .................................................................................................................................... 68
Deep Retrofit ...................................................................................................................................................... 69
Build New ........................................................................................................................................................... 71
3
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
WHERE WE GO FROM HERE ................................................................................................... 73
Updates to the Facilities Master Plan .................................................................................................... 74
Immediate Next Steps .......................................................................................................................... 74
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 75
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 76
Appendix A - Glossary ........................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix B – List of Facilities Included in the Plan ................................................................................ 78
Appendix C – Guiding Principles, BVCP Policies, and Industry References .............................................. 84
Appendix D – Current Building Status .................................................................................................... 88
Appendix E – Modeling Assumptions for Consolidation ......................................................................... 93
Appendix F – Energy Case Studies ......................................................................................................... 98
Appendix G – Medical Office Pavilion Reuse Analysis ............................................................................ 99
Appendix H – Municipal Service Center Max Capacity Analysis ............................................................ 100
Appendix I – Detailed Descriptions of Financing Mechanisms .............................................................. 101
4
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
City Council Members
Aaron Brockett
Rachel Friend
Junie Joseph, Mayor Pro Tem
Mirabai Nagle
Adam Swetlik
Mark Wallach
Sam Weaver, Mayor
Bob Yates
Planning Board Members
Jorge Boone
David Ensign, Chair
John Gerstle
Lupita Montoya
Sarah Silver
Lisa Smith
Peter Vitale, Vice Chair
City of Boulder Staff
Nuria River-Vandermyde, City
Manager
Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager
Cheryl Pattelli, Chief Financial Officer
Carolyn Elam, Climate Initiatives Energy
Manager
Facilities Department
Joanna Crean, Director, Facilities &
Fleet Department
Michele Crane, City’s Architect
Mark Simon, Facilities Engineering
Manager
Raphael Tingley, Financial Analyst
Consultants
Carol Adams, StudioTerra
Graham Maxwell, Ameresco
Kevin Williams, BBC Research and
Consulting
Jeff Dawson and Morgan Daly, Studio
Architecture
A special thanks to our entire facilities
staff who work tirelessly to provide
services to our community and to all
members of City of Boulder
departments who provided input and
guidance throughout the project.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
5
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
OUR BUILT
FUTURE
6
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Executive Summary
Boulder has evolved and grown over time to meet the changing needs of the community and
the challenges of a complex world. In many ways the city has adapted to these changes in a
reactive manner, making discrete decisions as specific facility needs and challenges arise. Until
now, there have not been the tools or opportunities to look at things in a more holistic and pro-
active manner. This plan gives the city a strategic investment and implementation plan to meet
the challenges in the most fiscally responsible way.
OUR BUILT FUTURE
WE HAVE AN AGING PORTFOLIO.
The City of Boulder currently has 1,870,326
gross square feet (GSF) spread across 76
buildings, with an average building age of 47
years. Seven of these buildings are over 95
years old and ten are over 60 years old. There
are 41 buildings between 30 to 60 years old and
the remaining 18 buildings are under 30 years
old. Typically, the cost of owning, operating,
and maintaining escalates significantly in
buildings aged 25 – 30 years old. (Note: This
excludes the three utility plants as detailed in
the document).
WE HAVE A CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
The city’s Climate Action Plan calls for an 80%
reduction in emissions in city buildings by 2030.
Currently, city buildings are inefficient and
consume too much energy. To meet climate
goals, becoming more energy efficient and
eliminating fossil fuels from city buildings is
necessary. This conversion requires deep energy
retrofits - like-for-like replacement of aging
infrastructure will not close the gap.
WE’VE NEGLECTED OUR BUILDINGS.
Reactive maintenance costs are skyrocketing,
and this approach will do nothing to address
deferred renewal needs in buildings, much less
move the needle toward city climate goals.
Better preventative care and proactive
measures will keep buildings healthy and
working properly.
OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES ARE NOT
BEING MET IN OUR BUILDINGS.
Many of the city’s buildings are hard to find,
uninviting for customers, do not provide
supportive or healthy work environments, nor
do they accommodate people of varying
needs well. As part of the analysis behind this
master plan, key performance indicators were
measured for each of the six guiding
principles, shedding light on critical
aspirations and shortcomings.
STATUS QUO IS NOT AN OPTION.
Costs to maintain this portfolio of buildings
will soon spiral out of control. The city
currently has an annual $8.2 million unfunded
liability gap to maintain an industry standard
of 10% Facility Condition Index (FCI). By
maintaining current funding levels, the status
quo would result in more than 30% of the
total value of the city facilities that will be due
or overdue for replacement by 2030,
representing a $17 million gap by 2030.
OUR PLAN IS THE MOST FISCALLY
CONSTRAINED APPROACH, OVER
TIME.
This plan presents an approach to simplifying
the city’s building portfolio and determining
when and where to make strategic
investments – large and small. The most
aggressive action now will lead to the shortest
length of time before there is a return on
investment (ROI).
7
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
KEY DECISION POINT
Over the next few decades, the city
will need to invest hundreds of
millions of dollars in building
infrastructure. The current inflection
point represents an opportunity to
make strategic decisions to start
investing those millions differently to
achieve city-wide goals.
In either direction – the city will spend
relatively the same amounts of
money. What is achieved with those
dollars could be dramatically different
depending on the path that is chosen.
This master plan recommends a new
strategic direction, the blue path, that
achieves the most with the money
spent.
WE ARE AT AN INFLECTION POINT
AND TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
There is an opportunity to shift towards a
new direction that will result in buildings
that truly meet both the city’s climate goals
and the needs of the community in a fiscally
responsible way. This is an inflection point –
a key moment to take a set of strategic
actions that will reduce risk; improve the
city’s financial situation, rather than letting
costs spiral; and meet key goals across each
of the guiding principles. This call to action
will require upfront capital funding to
achieve long-term financial sustainability.
This is a moment to create a new legacy.
WE NEED TO INVEST IN OUR FUTURE.
Over the next decade, city infrastructure will
require large investments no matter what
path is taken. Buildings are nearing end-of-
life and are becoming exponentially more
costly to maintain, while not achieving the
city’s goals.
Going forward, some facilities will require
extensive rehabilitation, while other
properties should be repurposed where
continued upkeep is fiscally unwise. In some
cases, constructing new facilities will be
required to best serve the community for the
next century.
WE CAN BUILD A NEW LEGACY.
This plan identifies a decision-making
framework that will lead to a more
sustainable future, building on the
foundation of the three pillars of facility
asset management – environmental
sustainability, financial stewardship, and
social responsibility. An opportunity is in
front of us to point in a new direction
towards change that will enable the city to
meet climate goals, provide a more
productive and collaborative work
environment, and serve the community
much better in the future.
OUR BUILT FUTURE
8
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Purpose of the Plan
.
This plan creates a common vision for city
facilities that will guide replacement of
aging infrastructure; inform the evolution
of spaces that support community and
staff in the delivery of essential services,
adapt to a changing environment; and
operate and maintain efficiently. This plan
sets the standard for excellence in facilities
operations, capital and operations fiscal
transparency, reduction of deferred
equipment replacement, and movement
toward achieving the facilities goals of
each city department.
This plan describes the current state of
facilities (at a portfolio level) and the
current if existing practices are continued.
The plan identifies needs and challenges
related to city facilities and the
opportunities to transform city buildings
over the next decade. Lastly, the plan
describes an implementation approach
that redirects forecasted funding to
achieve city-wide vision and goals. The city
will have a long-term strategy for funding
all facilities and evaluate the future
disposition of facilities on an ongoing basis.
OUR BUILT FUTURE
The Three Pillars
We shape our buildings and
afterwards our buildings shape us.
Winston Churchill
MASTER PLANS
Department master plans link mission,
goals, and investment strategies to the
annual budgeting process. They
demonstrate conformance with and
advancement of the goals and policies in
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP). The first ever comprehensive
Facilities Master Plan (FMP) looks across
these plans and builds upon the
engagement done by individual
departments to look holistically at facility
needs.
Boulder’s Facilities Master Plan (FMP) sets
the framework for responsible decision-
making and will facilitate ongoing
stewardship of City of Boulder buildings
and property in an efficient and effective
manner that best serves the community,
maximizes efficient provision of services,
minimizes impact on the environment, and
manages risk. The FMP provides a data-
driven investment and implementation
strategy for city buildings to ensure
financial, environmental, and social
sustainability - which are the three pillars of
Facility Asset Management.
9
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
A HOLISTIC APPROACH
The newly created Facilities Department is
in the unique position to create a holistic
view of the city’s entire portfolio of
buildings, providing a context for discrete
decision-making. Based on this view, the
department can compare the value and
importance of decisions ranging from
equipment replacement/renewal and
small remodels to deep energy retrofits,
and large-scale capital projects such as
new libraries, fire stations and city offices.
Individual department master plans
identify priorities for buildings and other
infrastructure but provide a focused view
and may miss opportunities to leverage
and consolidate both facilities and funding.
The Facilities Master Plan encompasses
the facility needs for all departments
“under one roof” and is the
comprehensive plan used to analyze these
needs and goals across all city functions as
well as describes strategies to address
shortcomings.
UNDER ONE ROOF
OUR BUILT FUTURE
10
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
OUR BUILT FUTURE
Related Plans and Policies
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and the City’s Sustainability and
Resilience Framework are key governing documents from which the guiding principles of
this master plan are derived. Other key polices and plans have been considered, including
the racial equity plan and Department Master Plans.
The FMP’s guiding principles are derived from long-standing community values and
represent a clear vision of Boulder's community and its commitment to:
Sustainability as a unifying framework to meet environmental, economic, and
social goals
A welcoming, inclusive, and diverse community
Culture of creativity and innovation
Strong city and county cooperation
Our unique community identity and sense of place
Compact, contiguous development and infill that supports evolution to a more
sustainable urban form
Great neighborhoods and public spaces
Environmental stewardship and climate action
A vibrant economy based on Boulder’s quality of life and economic strengths
An all-mode transportation system to make getting around without a car easy
and accessible to everyone
Physical health, safety, and well-being
11
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
CLIMATE INITIATIVES
In 2016, the city adopted a climate commitment
and then declared a climate emergency on July
23, 2019. The following goals guide the city’s
actions to address the crisis:
Reduce emissions 70% by 2030 against a
2018 baseline
Become a net zero city by 2035
Become a carbon positive city by 2040
Allocate necessary time and resources to
address the impacts of climate change in
an equitable manner
Strengthen community capacity to survive
and thrive
SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE
FRAMEWORK
Boulder has a long history of planning today for the
challenges of tomorrow, creating innovative
solutions, and undertaking successful resilience-
building activities and projects. From its 40+ year
legacy of open space preservation, to pioneering
commitments to climate action goals, the
community has supported some of the most
progressive resilience activities in the country for
decades, even before they were seen as building
Boulder’s resilience. In order to mobilize the
resources and community support necessary to
significantly increase social, economic, and
ecological resilience, we must have a compelling
vision of the future that allows us to adapt and
thrive in the face of disruption. Our facilities
provide one avenue to help meet city sustainability
and resilience goals. Tapping into the community’s
forward-thinking civic and planning culture, the goal
is to use our facilities to help weave resilience into
the day-to-day life and functions of community and
government.
Buildings are fundamental to society’s resilience.
They provide shelter and protection in a crisis
moment and comfort and security through recovery.
In North America and Europe, according to the
“National Human Activity Pattern Survey” 90% of
our time is spent indoors. “If we are lucky enough to
live to 80, we will have spent 72 years inside!” And
these buildings we spend all our time in represent
the largest consumer of material of all industries on
Earth. For those reasons, “healthy Buildings
represent, without exaggeration, one of the greatest
health – and business – opportunities ever.”
RACIAL EQUITY PLAN
Boulder City Council voted unanimously to adopt
the city's first-ever Racial Equity Plan. To close
the gaps, there is a focus on communities of
color to support those unjustly burdened by
racial inequity. Focusing on equity so that
everyone is valued, respected, and heard offers
many benefits. The City of Boulder is committed
to leading with our values to address changing
employee perceptions and behaviors first, and
then rippling outward, extending the impact into
the community. Our facilities must celebrate
this commitment to equity and support city
staff in dismantling structures that perpetuate
systemic inequity in our community and
government.
11 OUR BUILT FUTURE
The FMP is Informed by City-Wide Goals
12
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
OUR BUILT FUTURE
BUILT ON A SOLID
FOUNDATION
13
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
BVCP Policy Section Boulder’s Sustainability &
Resilience Framework
Boulder’s Facility Guiding
Principles
Sec. 1 – Intergovernmental
Cooperation & Growth
Management
Livable Community; Good
Governance
Resilient; Sustainable
Sec. 2 – Built Environment Livable Community;
Environmentally Sustainable
Community
Resilient; Experiential;
Sustainable; Functional;
Accessible; Economical
Sec. 3 – Natural Environment Environmentally Sustainable
Community
Resilient; Sustainable
Sec. 4 – Energy, Climate, and
Waste
Environmentally Sustainable
Community
Sustainable, Economical
Sec. 5 – Economy Economically Vital Community Resilient; Sustainable;
Economical
Sec. 6 – Transportation Accessible & Connected Community Accessible
Sec. 7 – Housing Livable Community Resilient; Accessible
Sec. 8 – Community Wellbeing &
Safety
Healthy & Socially Thriving
Community; Safe Community
Resilient; Accessible;
Experiential
Sec. 9 – Agriculture & Food Environmentally Sustainable
Community
Sustainable
Sec. 10 – Local Government &
Community Engagement
Good Governance Functional; Accessible
Guiding Principles
Key Performance Indicators
To evaluate the status of existing facilities, the Facilities Master Plan created a scoring system to
rank buildings based on how well each one meets the six guiding principles. A series of key
performance indicators under each guiding principle were identified and then the facilities were
given a score based on how well it compared to its peers. Scores generally range from 1 to 5,
where 1 is the worst possible score and 5 is the best, relative to a group of similar facilities.
These facility scores will guide the city as it prioritizes buildings for renovation and help move
them from needing “Deep Retrofits” or “Targeted Improvements” to a “Maintain Well” status.
OUR BUILT FUTURE
The following pages detail the six guiding principles that serve as the foundation of this plan.
14
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Resilient
Resilience is the ability to anticipate, adapt and flourish in the face of change. To be considered
resilient, buildings must be able to withstand intense natural and man-made disasters. The Urban
Land Institute defines resilience as “the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and
more successfully adapt to adverse events.” Hazard mitigation is further defined by FEMA as “any
sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long term risk to human life and property from a
hazard event.”
KEY PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
KPI 1: Flood Vulnerability – Assesses a
facility’s proximity to the 100-year
floodplain. Could the facility be
surrounded by potential flood waters
making access into or out of the
facility extremely difficult, if not
impossible, during a flood event?
KPI 2: Wildfire Vulnerability –
Assesses a facility’s proximity to a fire
zone (i.e., West of Broadway) and the
challenges that might be faced by the
facility during a wildfire event.
KPI 3: Disaster Readiness – Is the
facility disaster response ready or
does it require further study and
investment?
KPI 4: Community Shelter – Has the
facility been identified as, and can it
serve as, a community shelter?
KPI 5: “Essential” building – Has the
facility been identified as an
“essential” building?
GOALS
These natural hazard events are likely to occur more
frequently and with greater intensity due to climate
change. Therefore, it is important for the city to
improve each facility’s resiliency score and locate
future buildings outside the city’s highest hazard
zones. When facilities are in locations that face a
moderate risk, buildings should be designer to resist
damage from hazard events, maintain their
operation, quickly recover to full service and be easy
to repair.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE:
CHALLENGES
The two most common natural hazard events that
Boulder faces are floods and wildland fires, and
flooding potential is high across the city. Major fires
typically occur in the Foothills west of the city, and
the city’s wildland interface area west of Broadway.
A rising challenge with climate change will be the
impact of rising temperatures, weather extremes and
impacts on air quality.
Not only are facilities susceptible to direct physical
damage caused by natural and man-made hazard
events, but the services housed within facilities may
be heavily impacted or even incapacitated by a flood
or fire. It is critical to have city facilities that can
structurally withstand hazard events and continue to
provide critical services during emergencies.
INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES
Resilient Design Institute
US Army Corps of Engineers
Optimizing Community Infrastructure
International Wellbeing Institute: Prevention and
Preparedness, Resilience and Recovery
14 OUR BUILT FUTURE
15
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
KPI 1: Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
(MEP) Deferral Backlog (%) – The proportion of
the deferred maintenance backlog which can
be attributed to mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing systems within a facility.
KPI 2: Building Energy Use Intensity (EUI) – An
industry benchmark standard for measuring the
relative energy usage within a facility by gross
floor area.
KPI 3: Carbon Footprint – The calculated
carbon emissions a facility produces from its
energy and utility usage, measured in metric
tons per year.
KPI 4: Transportations Emissions Reductions –
Considers a buildings location to provide
increased multi-modal access and number of
services at one location as factors positively
impacting carbon emissions reductions from
automobiles.
The focus of the FMP is on operational carbon
(i.e., the carbon emitted from operating and
maintaining facilities) since embedded carbon,
although important, is difficult to quantify.
USGBC LEED
Green Globes Building Certification
ILFI’s Living Building Challenge
ILFI’s Net Zero Energy Building Certification
(NZEB)
GBCI’s The Sustainable SITES Initiative
IWBI’s WELL Building Standard
INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES
Sustainable
A sustainable facility is one that conserves
natural resources including energy,
carbon, and water.
CHALLENGES
Current city facilities are plagued by inefficient,
and mostly outdated equipment and systems.
Furthermore, the wide variety of different
building systems makes the city’s facilities
portfolio difficult and costly to maintain. Most
use natural gas for fuel and are difficult or very
costly to retrofit for renewable energy sources.
Most city facilities are aging, their exterior
envelopes are not up to current standards, and
their heating, ventilating and air conditioning
(HVAC) and lighting systems do not meet the
high-performance standards necessary to
achieve the city’s climate commitment.
GOALS
New city facilities should be high-performing,
energy efficient buildings that maximize the use
of low carbon fuel sources, i.e., they will quickly
transition from natural gas to 100% electric.
They should help “green up” the city’s supply
with an increased focus on resilient, distributed
energy resources fueled by renewable energy.
To reduce waste, city facilities should use
recycled content and renewable sources by
tapping into the circular materials economy for
future remodels and new construction. Buildings
should be deconstructed, and construction
materials recycled to the greatest extent
possible to avoid sending building materials to
the landfill. Buildings should limit negative
impacts on air quality and be built to meet the
city’s climate commitment goal. Facilities should
be efficient in their use of water.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE:
15 OUR BUILT FUTURE
16
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Accessible and
Equitable
Accessible design is centered around making our buildings easy to use for all ages, abilities,
and ethnicities. Equitable design aims to remove the barriers that create undue effort and
separation in our communities. It enables everyone to participate equally, confidently, and
independently in everyday activities.
CHALLENGES
Many of the city’s facilities are not accessible via
public transit and services are dispersed across
many buildings. Due to the age of our buildings,
they are not accessible to people with physical
disabilities and many lack accommodations that
would make them more accessible to people with
cultural or language differences. Many buildings
are difficult to identify as city facilities as they lack
a central location or civic architectural style that
communicates the city’s broader values. It is often
difficult for customers to locate parking areas and
the buildings generally lack effective internal and
external wayfinding.
KEY PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
KPI 1: ADA Compliance – Assesses
whether a building is fully compliant
to today’s standards or somewhat
compliant based on previous
standards. If non-compliant, an audit
is required to assess whether a facility
can be upgraded or whether it would
be cost prohibitive to do so.
KPI 2: Inclusivity – Considers whether
a facility “serves all people”? Is it all
inclusive and welcoming?
KPI 3: Accessibility – Can the facility
be accessed by multi-modal means?
How limited are the options to arrive
at, and access, the facility?
GOALS
Buildings that are accessible and equitable will
accommodate people of all types, whether they
vary by age, gender, race, language, religion,
physical ability, and mental ability. Accessible and
equitable buildings and sites will welcome all
members of the community and encourage their
greater involvement in civic activities.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE:
INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES
Federal ADA Standards for Accessible Design
The Principles of Inclusive Design by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access
Design for All Foundation
Institute for Human Centered Design
National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR)
National Endowment for the Arts
16 OUR BUILT FUTURE
17
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Experiential
Well-designed, healthy civic spaces and building environments improve civic pride, connect
residents, promote productive work, encourage social interaction, create enjoyment and
express our values as a community.
CHALLENGES
Many of the city’s existing facilities are
difficult to find, hard to navigate, lack
inspirational exterior architecture and
public spaces, and are plagued with
unhealthy, inefficient, and sterile
interior work environments for city staff
and their customers.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
KPI 1: Facility Experience for the Community –
Assesses whether the facility, in its current
state, is a good experience for the community
and its customers to use and experience.
KPI 2: Facility Experience for Staff – As above,
is the facility, in its current state, a good
experience for staff.
GOALS
High quality design is important at both the
campus (exterior) and building (interior) scale. It
benefits the city’s customers by improving
community engagement, reducing frustration,
improving civic pride, and reducing multiple single
occupant vehicle (SOV) trips. It benefits city staff
by supporting workplace equity, wellness,
productivity, efficiency, and collaboration, both
within and between departments. It also has the
added benefit of reducing turnover since staff
feels appreciated and valued by city leadership.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE:
INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES
Community Cultural Plan
Historic Preservation Plan
2021 Racial Equity Plan
Customer Experience Principles
17 OUR BUILT FUTURE
18
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Economical
The city must invest resources wisely on behalf of
residents. Policy makers balance numerous city
priorities including public safety, resident services,
and environmental goals. Facilities investments
must further the goals of the city and efficiently
meet the needs of residents and staff.
CHALLENGES
The city faces several key economic and fiscal
challenges related to facilities:
Many of the current city facilities require
substantial capital investment over the next
decade to remain functional.
Even with substantial investments, some of
the facilities may remain inefficient to
operate and fail to meet other key city goals
related to climate and accessibility.
Many current facilities are costly to operate
and maintain.
Past facilities investment has been uneven,
overly complicated, and inequitable.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPI)
KPI 1: Capital Needs per Square Foot – a
relative measure of deferred maintenance
and 5-year capital needs forecasted for a
facility.
KPI 2: Operating Costs per Square Foot – a
relative measure of the cost to operate and
maintain a facility.
KPI 3: The Facility Condition Index (FCI) – an
industry standard risk metric comparing the
amount of deferral relative to the current
replacement value of an asset.
GOALS
The city will have a framework for making
facilities investments that balances the
guiding principles of the Facilities Master
Plan. Using the decision-making framework,
the city will make transparent choices about
the future of individual facilities ranging
from selling the asset, to substantial
renovations.
INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES
United States General Services Administration – High Performance Green Buildings
City of Boulder Capital Improvement Program
GUIDING PRINCIPLE:
18 OUR BUILT FUTURE
19
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Functional
Functional is defined as the way in which
something works or operates. A functional
facility must effectively house the uses within it,
accommodate change in uses over time
(adaptable), be easy to operate and maintain
(efficient), and be safe and secure for all users.
CHALLENGES
Many of the city’s facilities are inefficient and have had
frequent modifications made to their interior layout
and/or use. Some buildings were built with completely
different uses in mind and now struggle to adapt
effectively to meet current needs. Furthermore, many
building systems are outdated, are difficult to maintain
and operate, and have unique parts that need special
skills or equipment to repair. Some buildings even lack
appropriate physical and electronic security features to
protect occupants during emergency situations or active
shooter events.
KEY PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
KPI 1: Maintenance and
Operability of Facility – Assesses
whether a facility is easy to
operate and maintain. This
measures several criteria
including age of facility,
redundancy, access to materials,
frequency of failure, and the
intrusive nature of maintenance.
KPI 2: Facility Adaptability –
Assesses how easily adaptable a
facility is from its current form,
considering the costs and
functional challenges associated
with adaptive renewal.
KPI 3: Facility Security –
Considers how secure a facility is
in its current state from a
physical, preventative, and
technological standpoint.
GOALS
City facilities should be durable and built to last over 30,
50 and preferably 100 years. To be functional for a long
period of time they must also be adaptable to changes
in use and trends in workplace culture. Purpose-built
buildings should be easy to operate and effectively
house their intended use. All city facilities should be
maintained well to avoid reaching a low Facility
Condition Index (FCI) or a low score in any guiding
principle category. City facilities must also be secure and
safe for both staff and visitors.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE:
INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES
International Facility Management Association (IFMA)
Functional Performance Test (FPT)
ASHRAE Standards and Guidelines
19 OUR BUILT FUTURE
20
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Outreach and Engagement
FMP ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Facilities Directed Engagement
City Facilities Vision Planning
Community Engagement in 2016
All-staff open house – 2016
Director Charette – 2017
Development of Guiding Principles
Staff work session – 2019
Director/ Leadership Team Meetings – 2019-
2020
Consolidation Opportunities
Customer Survey 2019
Director and Staff Engagement 2016 - 2020
On-going Department meetings
Workplace Transformation and COVID Response
All staff outreach – 2020
Director Focus Group Meetings – 2020
Workplace Transformation Outreach and
Survey
Learning Labs at Park Central and the
Municipal Building
Department Master Planning Engagement
Informed by completed and on-going
Department Master Plans
On-going and annual outreach with
Departments in developing specific projects
Open Space and Mountain Parks
Parks and Recreation
Police
Fire
And others
As described, the FMP spans all city departments
in one way or another, as opposed to most
master plans that are specific to a department’s
services in the community. Five years of
engagement with a variety of stakeholders has
informed the development of this first FMP.
Over the course of this time, while the COVID-19
pandemic interrupted the planning process, it
also informed the future.
The FMP’s approach to engagement with the
community and staff is two-pronged. First,
community input as it relates to buildings is
provided through individual master plans and
those findings are adopted into this master plan.
This FMP does not look to re-engage around
facilities already surveyed through other
activities. Second, input from the community
and staff has been solicited and incorporated
into the findings and guiding principles as it
relates to city buildings in general, and more
specifically office buildings that commonly fall
short of representation elsewhere. Much of this
engagement looks at centralization or
consolidation of customer services in buildings,
along with staff work and collaboration that
happens across many departments within one or
many buildings.
In late 2015 the city purchased the Alpine-
Balsam site and was in a planning process
concerning the East Bookend of the Civic Area.
During a Vision Planning process for these two
areas between 2016 to 2019, engagement with
the community was focused on city buildings to
better understand community perception
around customer service out of city buildings
generally, and community sentiment and
preference for what a new civic campus should
and could look like.
This resulted in a City Facilities Vision Plan
which was an early iteration and insight into
the qualitative goals and values for city
buildings. As part of this work, staff at all levels
were also engaged through open houses,
workshops, and surveys.
Over the past five years as planning work
progressed on Alpine-Balsam, continued
engagements with departments has occurred.
OUR BUILT FUTURE
21
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
In early 2020, the Facilities Department was
poised to begin more specific design work
on Pavilion Renovation and development of
a new Western City Campus, tying multiple
buildings together. The COVID-19 pandemic
put a delay in this work as the Facilities
Department reacted to more immediate
needs to close many buildings and focus to
keep those that remained open, safe. During
that time, a side investigation into hybrid
work as a result of what the world was
learning about our ability to work remotely
unfolded (see page 60).
Over the course of 2020 and into 2021, extensive engagement with departments has taken
place to understand both how city staff work, and customer services have changed in ways that
should be continued as things begin to return to normal. While staff are only just starting to
come back together in a more hybrid world, the past year and engagement with staff and
community have shaped and impacted much about how we imagine our buildings both now
and well into the future.
22
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
WHERE WE
ARE TODAY
23
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Building Portfolio
This master plan covers 75 buildings, totaling more than 1.8 million square feet with a current
replacement value (CRV) of $577 million dollars. City buildings include libraries, fire stations,
recreation centers, office buildings, the public safety building, and others. There are three
Utilities buildings that have been excluded from this analysis as the scale of them from a
financial and energy perspective too heavily weights the analysis of rest of the building
portfolio. These facilities do show up on the map below and an assessment of those buildings
will be conducted in alignment with this master plan. For a complete list of buildings, refer to
Appendix B.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
24
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
DISBURSED BUILDINGS:
NOT BY DESIGN
Roughly 25% of the city’s buildings were
acquired more opportunistically as
services and programs grew over time.
Today, the Boulder community visits
over twenty different facilities to receive
city services and interact with city
government including, but not limited
to, attending city council, board, or
other public meetings; obtaining permits
and licenses; and paying bills. It is a
confusing array of places the community
must navigate.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
PURPOSEFULLY DECENTRALIZED
BUILDINGS
These buildings are intentionally
spread throughout the city,
designed to deliver specific
services. They have unique
characteristics, qualities, form,
systems, and infrastructure to
support the delivery of needed
and desired services to the
community.
25
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
CITY LEASES
The city is both landlord and tenant. There are a number of buildings that the city currently
leases out in full, or in part, to businesses and non-profits. Most buildings leased to non-profits
are at a rent of $1 per year, while commercial tenants pay rent in line with current market
conditions. The management of these leases has been inconsistent across city departments and
a deliberate approach to property management for these buildings is needed. While lease
management is not a focus area of the FMP, its importance has been recognized and the
Facilities Department has requested a Real Estate Manager position to manage leases and
partner with other city departments and tenants to adopt common lease language and terms,
for both commercial and non-profit leases.
The city has also leased space (primarily office space) in the past to accommodate staff needed
to delivery core services and programs to the city. A transition to hybrid work is helping to
alleviate direct pressure on ebb and flow of staff office space needs and in 2020 the city vacated
a lease costing roughly $1 million annually by moving to hybrid work. Broadly, it is not optimal
for the city to lease space. Since the city is a long-term tenant, the upfront costs and on-going
rental costs associated with leasing space versus building or renovating an owned building pays
back within less than ten years and in many cases closer to five. Owned buildings can be and are
used as collateral to support a myriad of needs and major projects across the city.
The Dushanbe Tea House (commercial lease) and the
Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art (not-for-profit
lease) are two buildings that the city owns and leases out. 25 WHERE WE ARE TODAY
26
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
The people who manage your building have a greater
impact on your health than your doctor
Healthy Buildings by Joseph G. Allen and John D. Macomber
In 2020, the city created a new citywide
Facilities Department. Formerly, the
Facilities and Asset Management (FAM)
Division was housed under the Public
Works Department. This move
represented the increasingly important
role that facilities play in both the daily
lives of Boulder residents, visitors, and
staff, and in the ability to make a
significant contribution to the city’s
Climate Action Plan goals. It also
recognizes the significant assets and new
initiatives managed by facilities staff.
The newly formed Facilities Department is
the “steward” of city buildings. Core
services provided by the department
include:
Capital planning, design, and
construction services
Asset management and capital
renewal planning
Energy management
Preventative and reactive
maintenance in buildings and on
grounds
Security access and monitoring of
buildings
Custodial services across all city
buildings
Facilities staff contend with aging
infrastructure in a wide variety of buildings
from libraries to recreation centers, to city
offices. While a few of these buildings are
energy efficient, most are not.
The focus of the newly established Facilities
Department is to pursue consolidation
opportunities, while maintaining and operating
the city’s existing buildings. The Facilities
Department works cross-departmentally to
further the goals and vision of other work
groups that identify needed service changes,
existing facility deficits, new partnerships and
expanding community services.
RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Brenton Building Renovation • City Building Portfolio Data Collection and Database Development •
Workplace Transformation and COVID-19 Response • Alpine Balsam and Hospital Deconstruction •
North Boulder Branch Library • Fire Station 3 Replacement • Radio Towers to Support Upgraded Radio
Infrastructure.
Core Service Delivery
C
26 WHERE WE ARE TODAY
27
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Building Portfolio Analysis
In 2020, the Facilities Department performed a capital planning study to help quantify facility
capital needs in alignment with industry standards. The process was both collaborative and
iterative, providing ample opportunity for facilities staff and key departmental stakeholders to
provide feedback based on institutional knowledge, recent capital projects, and validate the life
cycle templates. This resulted in accurate life cycle profiles for each city building, estimating
major renewal timelines and costs for major building systems and elements.
ASSETPLANNER® SOFTWARE
AssetPlanner® is a live data repository
which acts as the system of record for
data and information related to city
facilities. The established asset register
allows the city to group buildings by
department, or any other category, and
perform graphical analysis on facilities.
This data driven, software-enabled
approach enables better informed
decision making in capital and operational
planning associated with the building’s
portfolio.
The analysis that follows is on 75 buildings
(refer to Appendix B for the specific list of
buildings included in the data set). Three utility
plants have been excluded from this analysis
because their scale, energy use and funding
structure are highly inconsistent with all the
other buildings. Recommendations from this
master plan do pertain to these buildings,
however, specific assessment of these buildings
and impacts on the portfolio will be conducted
separately. All financial data is presented in
current year dollars, however, it should be
noted that when not including the effects of
inflation (or financing costs), the date of return
on investment (ROI) for modeled investments
may be artificially pushed out when compared
with a “status quo” scenario.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
28
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Building Life Cycles
The City of Boulder building portfolio has
an average age of 47 years.
Over half of the facilities
were built prior to the 1970’s.
Buildings progress through a life cycle
starting out new and in excellent working
condition with little repair required for the
first 10-15 years. The better the preventative
care and proactive measures to keep
buildings healthy and working properly, the
more likely they can be expected to continue
to perform well and require less reactive and
more costly repair.
Many buildings in the city’s portfolio are
already, or will soon become, increasingly
expensive to operate and maintain
compared to the total value of the
building. This represents a critical point in
deciding to either put good money
towards diminishing returns or choose a
new course and put that money to work
on something new.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
29
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
New Life (Brenton Building, Boulder
Reservoir Building)
When a building is new, capital renewal needs
are minimal to none, and the building performs
predictably and linearly. Operations and
maintenance (O&M) are proactive and
preventative versus reactive, and utility costs
are efficient.
Middle Life
Capital renewal on systems starts coming due
and buildings perform more randomly and less
predictably. O&M becomes increasingly reactive
and utility costs are less efficient if the building
is not routinely kept balanced. Buildings that are
designed to last are high performing and, most
importantly, are funded at appropriate levels.
Well-built buildings will enter middle life 10-15
years later and costs can be kept under control
for longer periods.
TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP OF CITY BUILDING
PORTFOLIO
Inflection Point (Municipal Building, Fleet
Building)
At 25-30 years in a typical building, or at 50-60
years for a well-designed, well-maintained, high-
performing building, the cost of owning, operating,
and maintaining aging infrastructure escalates
significantly. Equally, the performance of the
building and systems deteriorates. At this point, it is
critical to determine whether continued investment
in the current state of the building is worthwhile or,
if either, a significant (deep) retrofit should be
made, or the asset should be repurposed entirely.
End of Life
Without a deep retrofit and appropriate
maintenance, as the buildings approach their life
expectancy, capital renewal needs escalate,
building performance deteriorates, and O&M
becomes reactive and less efficient rapidly. At this
point, the asset no longer performs and should be
repurposed, disposed of, or deconstructed.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
30
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD
The idiom “to throw good money after bad” refers to a situation in which someone appears
to be wasting money on a losing proposition. The temptation to continue spending money
on a losing proposition or an asset that is beyond its useful life can be considerable,
especially when there has been a lot of time and money invested in it.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
31
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Equipment Renewal and Replacement Forecasting
Assuming a building is designed to last
one-hundred years, some components,
such as a roof or mechanical unity, will
require numerous replacements over the
total lifespan of the building. Each
component has a unique life cycle that
may be extended with preventative care
or reduced when neglected. Different
building components will need to
undergo replacement at various times
during the life of a facility.
With all the city’s buildings now modelled
in a database, the deferred systems
replacements and maintenance backlog
can be quantified.
The chart below depicts all the deferred
equipment and systems replacements, and
renewal needs that have built up, until
2021. It then provides a 30-year forecast of
capital renewal needs for the city’s
facilities that will come due and will
compound on top of what has already
been deferred if not addressed.
The present level of the deferred equipment and systems renewal for the city’s portfolio is
estimated to be $55 million and will continue to accumulate to $175 million
by 2030 at current funding levels.
CAPITAL ANNUAL RENEWAL NEEDS FORCAST BY PRIORITY
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
32
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Facilities Condition Index
What is the Facilities Condition Index (FCI)?
A key industry standard - and a measurement of building health, FCI – is the ratio of the cost
of remedying capital deficiencies (typically deferred maintenance) to the current
replacement value (CRV), or the total amount of expenditure in current dollars that would
be required to replace the facilities to its optimal condition. As an FCI rating increases,
facilities will experience an increased failure risk to components; increased maintenance and
operating costs; and negative impacts on building occupants.
The FCI provides a consistent measurement
of condition for a single building, group of
buildings, or a total portfolio. FCI is used by
the U.S. Government Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) as standard practice for Facility
Condition Assessments (FCA) and Building
Evaluation Reports (BER) for federal facilities.
As an FCI rating increases, facilities will
experience:
Increased failure risk to components
Increased maintenance and operating
costs of facilities
Negative impacts on building
occupants
The FCI is calculated and represented by
various benchmark & color-coded indicators
as follows:
A “Good” FCI rating is achieved when
the unfunded liability for the asset(s) is
less than 5% of the current asset(s)
replacement value.
A “Fair” FCI rating is achieved when
the unfunded liability for the asset(s) is
between 5% and 10% of the current
asset(s) replacement value.
A “Poor” FCI rating is achieved when
the unfunded liability for the asset(s) is
between 10% and 30% of the current
asset(s) replacement value.
A “Critical” FCI rating is achieved
when the unfunded liability for the
asset(s) is greater than 30% of the
current asset(s) replacement value.
32 WHERE WE ARE TODAY
33
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
What FCI Looks Like
Critical Condition
In the critical category are buildings that have experienced structural failures or have
mechanical systems in sever decline. Pumps, belts, motors, electronics commonly break
down and when they do, effected areas must be shut down and maintenance staff is
diverted from other tasks to address what is now a critical issue. Ordering of replacement
parts can be challenging with old equipment as they are no longer stocked and, in many
cases, parts must be custom made. This increases time effected areas are shut down and
unavailable for staff or the public to use.
Good Condition
Buildings with relatively new equipment, recently renovated have a good condition or FCI.
Mechanical units such as these seen here employ predictive maintenance in that they are
self-protecting, which means if something is going wrong, they shut down and send a
proactive alert before a malfunction actually damages the unit. This means is that
maintenance staff can address the “call for help” from the unit long before it breaks and
avoid additional collateral damage from the things breaking down.
33 WHERE WE ARE TODAY
New Mechanical
Equipment
Mechanical
Systems Decline
Structural
Failure
34
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
City Building Portfolio FCI
The city has current deferred replacement needs at $55 million, against a CRV of $577
million. This puts the condition of the city’s portfolio in “fair” condition (9.6%) overall
based on industry standards.
With the average age of city buildings at 47 years and capital needs continuing to increase,
it is anticipated the portfolio will migrate to the “critical” range by 2033 based on the
results of the capital planning study. This is predicated on the current $2.3 million of
annual funding for deferred maintenance and capital renewal. To maintain the portfolio in
the “fair” range, with an asset sustainability target of 10%, the city will need to invest
approximately $10.5 million each year in capital renewal.
The city’s building portfolio has been kept in decent condition so far for a few reasons.
Over the years, the city has made sporadic investments in buildings through bonds and
other sources to make targeted improvements. This has resulted in uneven investment in
buildings – some get fixed, others are neglected – but the portfolio as a whole benefits and
FCI for the whole portfolio stays low. The other things masking the critical needs of our
infrastructure is that we essentially subsize our capital renewal needs with our operations
and maintenance budget – which is running at two times the industry standard.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
CUMULATIVE FCI FOR PORTFOLIO
35
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Asset Sustainability Target
It is recommended that the City of Boulder establish an “Asset Sustainability Target” for
funding using the FCI metric. Many organizations have begun using 10%, or lower, as an
appropriate FCI level for their portfolios, stating that it is acceptable to carry a deferred
backlog of up to 10% of the replacement value of the asset. If the deferred backlog can
remain at less than 10%, then the assets will be continually “sustained” at an acceptable
level of risk, preserving the initial capital investment and minimizing impacts to end users
and staff. The financial analysis that follows is measured against this target and
recommendations for using this target are further elaborated on in the following section.
Unfunded Liability
The chart below provides a graphical outline of the cumulative renewal costs. The current
total unfunded liability is $55 million and is projected to grow to $175 million by 2030 and
$372 million by 2050. Overlaying recent averages for annual funding, and projecting them
over time, it is estimated that the City of Boulder is currently contributing around 0.5% of
CRV towards capital renewal. This contribution reduces the total liability to an unfunded
liability of $307 million in 2050.
CUMULATIVE UNFUNDED LIABILITY
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
36
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
The total cost of ownership (TCO) is an analysis used and
endorsed by ISO standards (ISO 55001: Asset Management). TCO
considers the whole lifecycle of an asset and must account for all
costs related to ownership and operation of a building, including
the four key stages of the asset lifecycle:
1) Planning: This stage establishes requirements and
confirms alignment to the vision, ensuring that any
ongoing development adds value to the organization.
2) Acquisition: This stage includes any acquisition costs
such as procuring land or an existing asset, in addition to
the costs associated with building new. Optimized
decision making can only be made once the cost and
requirements are defined.
3) Operation & Maintenance: This stage is critical in
controlling the total cost of ownership of a building,
where a robust asset management framework is
essential for reducing risk, increasing resilience,
managing the bottom line, and maintaining the
performance of an asset.
4) Disposal: When an asset reaches its end of useful life, it
can become a risk to the city and a financial cost where
good money follows bad money, and the asset continues
to underperform. Robust planning and exit strategies are
required to optimize transition and disposal.
In cities and municipalities, some buildings form the civic center and heartbeat of the community.
Therefore, at end of useful life, adaptive renewal strategies are considered (vs. disposal) to
modernize aging infrastructure and realign to the current day needs of the city. However, in other
cases, it’s important to mitigate against these increasing risks, and the escalating total cost of
ownership, by planning for “new” buildings and consolidated functional uses.
Most industry studies suggest that over a 30-year period the cost to operate and maintain a building
accounts for up to 80% of the lifecycle costs of that asset. Whereas the cost of development
(inclusive of planning, design, acquisition, financing, and construction) only accounts for up to 20% of
the lifecycle costs. Over time, as assets continue to be operated through multiple lifecycles, the
“hidden” cost to operate and maintain buildings only increases in proportionality, as does the risk of
failure, redundancy of parts and equipment, and the quality of services that the building provides.
Adopting a robust asset management framework which is anchored by TCO allows for good financial
stewardship of city assets. The benefits of this approach will save money, drive efficiencies, increase
the useful service life of assets, prioritize decision making for capital investments, provide
transparency and thought leadership while breaking down organizational silos.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
30-Year Building
Total Costs of Ownership
36
37
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Facility Renewal Funding
How Much is Required?
Industry standards suggest that 2% of the current replacement value should be
allocated to annual renewal, assuming proper preventative maintenance practices are
followed. In addition, special funds should be allocated to reduce the backlog of deferred
maintenance for those facilities with an abnormally high backlog. Excluding special funds,
the renewal funding for City of Boulder would translate to $10.5 million annually based on
a current replacement value of $577 million. Currently, the city dedicates $2.3 million
annually to facility renewal and supplements these funds on a project-by-project basis or
with department specific funds.
HOW MUCH FUNDING IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN BUILDING
INFRASTRUCTURE?
Various sources of funding are required to build, maintain, and operate a facility:
1. Capital funding to design and construct the asset.
2. Renewal funding for replacement of worn-out components and systems, updates from code
changes etc.
3. Operation and Maintenance funding for repairs, custodial, utilities, and preservation of
capital investments.
Many guidelines for facility renewal have been established by professional organizations and asset
management specialists. The American Public Works Association has published maintenance and
repair guidelines for facilities. A minimum of 2% of the current replacement value of those facilities
is required to adequately maintain them.
Another set of guidelines for funding of assets is based on facility subsystem life cycle evaluations
(stipulated as follows):
1.5% to 2.5% of the replacement value is required for sufficient “capital renewal” on an
ongoing basis to keep the facilities in good condition for their present use.
PLUS 0.5% to 1.5% of the replacement value is required to sufficiently address “plant
adaptation” funds on an ongoing basis to alter the facilities for changes in use as well as
codes and standards.
PLUS, sufficient “catch-up maintenance” funds over a short period to bring the facilities to a
reliable operating condition by offsetting the effects of deferred maintenance.
It has become clear that institutions have failed in the stewardship of
their facilities assets. Erosion of its buildings and supporting
infrastructure undermines every aspect of an institution’s ability to
function effectively. To restore those facilities... Massive increases in
the amount now spent on repair and renovation will be necessary.
Financial Planning Guidelines for Facility Renewal and Adaptation, a joint study by SCUP, NACUBO, and APPA
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
38
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Current Funding Approach in Buildings
Currently, the city has used a variety of funding sources for facilities construction and
maintenance. Below are described the most consequential sources along with their funding
mechanism, typical uses, and restrictions:
The Facilities Renovation & Replacement (FR&R)
fund receives approximately $2.3 million annually
in transfers from several different funds. The
largest share is contributed directly by the general
fund, while specific departments also make annual
transfers into the fund (e.g., the police
department budgets $25,000 each year towards
the fund). The size of the fund is inadequate to
fund all renovations for general building and has
not grown in the past decade. Individual
department contributions to the fund are not
related to the expense generated by the
department.
General Fund contributions. For special projects
and specific facilities initiatives, City Council has
occasionally set aside money for a particular
facilities project.
Bonding and other financing mechanisms.
The city uses bonding and other forms of
financing (such as certificates of
participation) to fund major projects. Bonds
require voter approval and as such are often
targeted at a wide variety of projects
impacting many aspects of city services and
the Capital Improvement Program.
Dedicated department or program funding
streams. Some departments (such as Open
Space and Mountain Parks) have designated
funding streams available to fund facility
improvements. This can result in uneven
investment across departments.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
39
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
The current funding strategy has resulted in
uneven investment across the city’s facilities
portfolio. As a result, many city facilities
have accumulated sizeable unfunded
liabilities and need substantial capital
investment soon to merely continue to
operate. To meet city climate, access, and
equity goals many facilities would require
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
significant additional investments. This
Facilities Master Plan provides an
understanding of the fiscal needs of the
current facilities, methods for the city to use in
evaluating whether to maintain or liquidate a
facility, and recommendations on future
facilities investment strategies to ensure
transparency, efficiency, and equity across the
city’s facilities portfolio.
40
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Building Carbon Use
To meet the city’s commitment to reduce
carbon emissions by 80% by 2030 (and
ultimately to get to carbon neutral), taking
stock of existing facilities and the challenges
faced with aging infrastructure is necessary.
In this assessment, it was determined that
roughly 75% of emissions from city
buildings come from just 25% of the total
building stock.
Three key actions must be taken to meet the city’s climate goals
and truly lead the way
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
In the US, the building sector makes up
roughly 40% of all primary energy use and
associated greenhouse has (GHG) emissions. In
2008, GHG emissions from city facilities was
14,440 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (mt
CO2e). By 2016, city facilities reduced carbon
emissions by 40%, however, those positive
reductions have since plateaued.
41
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Reducing Building Carbon Emissions
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
Nineteen buildings have been identified to focus on reducing emissions. Half of this list
would be addressed through the consolidation initiative. The remaining building would
be a focus for deep energy retrofits.
One of the challenges facing the city’s buildings is the escalating cost of aging
infrastructure. This could be defined tangibly as the cost of renewal and/or the cost to
operate and maintain. However, there’s also the environmental and social costs for
maintaining buildings which hinder progress towards the city’s climate and circular
economy goals.
42
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Consolidation: The FMP’s proposed consolidation strategy
addresses many older and inefficient buildings which
significantly contribute to carbon emissions from city buildings.
Deep Retrofits: The city’s buildings are old, inefficient, and are
reliant upon fossil fuels to operate. Natural gas is the primary
fuel for heat and hot water. Energy assessments will help
identify energy conservation measures (ECMs) which will help
improve our Energy Use Intensity (EUI) through targeted
improvements. However, ad-hoc energy efficiency projects will
only get the city so far. There is a need to go further and invest
in buildings by performing deep retrofits and electrify the
building stock. This would open more pathways for a
comprehensive renewable energy system, increasing the need
for a year-round base load of green electricity, improving
building resilience and the ability to respond to natural disasters
and other climate related impacts.
As stated, further carbon reductions in buildings since 2016
have been challenging to achieve. Simple, economical measures
have been employed in buildings to save energy and now a
more aggressive approach must be pursued if carbon
consumption is to be driven towards zero. This master plan
identifies the paths necessary in buildings to achieve the city’s
climate goals.
Brenton Building
Deep Energy
Retrofit
The city has demonstrated
what needs to be done
through the renovation of the
Brenton Building in 2018. The
EUI in this building was 128
kBtu/SF and through a Deep
Energy Retrofit which
included complete conversion
of mechanical systems, has
reduced its EUI to 26 kBtu/SF
over the past two years. The
Brenton Building is the city’s
first all-electric building and
as such can meet its energy
demand through renewables.
Note: Electrifying buildings
will require deep retrofits –
which is discussed more in the
following section – alongside
other strategies such as
Consolidation.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
Driving energy consumption to zero in our city facilities
43
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
THE COST OF CARBON
According to the Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF), the current
estimate of the social cost of carbon
is over $50 per metric ton in today’s
dollars. At 9,192 MT CO2e in 2019,
the cost of operating existing city
building’s is in the range of
approximately $460,000 per annum,
not including waste and wastewater
treatment plants. An 80% reduction
from 2008 levels, estimated at 14,440
MT CO2e per year, implies that city
buildings have some way to go, as
must emit less than 2,888 MT CO2e
per year in 2030. This requires a
further reduction of 6,304 MT CO2e
from current levels, potentially
unlocking an additional $315,200 per
year in savings using current year
dollars.
CLIMATE ACTION
By 2019, the city had realized a 40% reduction in
emissions from city operations and facilities. A
renewed focus is required to ensure the city
remains on track to meet the 80% reduction by
2030 and is reliant upon a fully renewable grid.
To address the challenge, the city is undertaking
the following actions:
Conducting a building stock analysis to
determine long-term strategy for improving
the city’s building portfolio;
Setting individual building EUI targets;
Moving staff out of inefficient buildings
located in the flood zone into high-
performing, at or near net-zero retrofitted
buildings;
Installing solar on 18 city facilities and
exploring options for additional solar onsite,
including an ongoing bulk purchase program;
Electrifying natural gas loads.
PRIORITIZING THE
REDUCTION OF GHG
In Boulder, carbon from
Natural Gas accounts for over
35% of our facilities GHG
emissions (2019). Taking steps
to decarbonize will offer
significant GHG reduction
potential.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
43
44
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
44 WHERE WE ARE TODAY
Prioritizing Social
Responsibility
In general, city buildings fail to meet the accessible, equitable, and experiential guiding
principles that support the FMP’s Social Responsibility Pillar. The Key Performance
Indicators used to assess social responsibility include meeting ADA compliance; serving
all people in a welcoming manner; being easily accessed through multi-modal
transportation options; and creating a great experience for the community and city
staff. An analysis of existing buildings demonstrates that there is room for significant
improvement in these areas. Any future building must prioritize meeting our social
responsibility through thoughtful design, including addressing the increasing climate
challenges we will inevitably face. This is especially vital for Boulder’s underserved and
vulnerable populations.
The FMP prioritizes improving the
customer experience throughout
city buildings.
45
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Guiding Principles Assessment
The FMP’s guiding principles
consider facility overall condition,
financial indicators, energy
performance measures as well as
more qualitative measures such
as experience and function to rate
the buildings against each other.
The spreadsheet to the right
illustrates the current condition
of city buildings relative to the six
guiding principles. In general, city
buildings:
do not meet functional
needs of the people using
them and are challenging
to operate;
provide disproportionate
experience to customers
and staff;
do not meet sustainability
values;
vary in their resiliency from
good to poor;
are lagging in being
accessible to all people;
and
are costly and inefficient to
operate and maintain.
As such, there is clear room for
improvement across the board.
Asset Name Asset Department x Letter z Financial Sustainable Resilient Accessible Functional Experiential
Brenton Building Offices A B A D B C B
11th & Spruce Parking B D A E C E D
BMOCA Leased B B A E C E C
East Boulder Community Center Rec Center B D E B C D B
Fire Station 8 Emergency Services B A B C D E D
Fire Training Center Emergency Services B A E C D E D
Main Library Libraries B D B D B C D
North Boulder Branch Library Libraries B B B E D C D
North Boulder Rec Center Rec Center B C E B B D C
OSMP Hub Offices B B B E B C B
10th & Walnut Parking C D A E C E D
1500 Pearl Parking C D B E C E D
Boulder Reservoir Visitor Center Parks & Recreation C E C D C C B
Broadway Parking Strucutre Parking C D A E C E D
Chautauqua Dining Hall Leased C C E E D E C
Child, Youth and Family Services Offices C A D E D D D
Fire Station 1 Emergency Services C A E C D E E
Fire Station 2 Emergency Services C C C C E E E
Fire Station 4 Emergency Services C B D C E E E
Fire Station 5 Emergency Services C B D D E E E
Fire Station 7 Emergency Services C A D D D E E
Fleet Services Support Services C A E C E E E
Iris Center Offices C A C E D D E
Meadows Library Libraries C B B E D C D
OSMP - Cherryvale South Offices C B B D E E E
OSMP Office Annex Offices C B A E E E D
OSMP Shop Support Services C B A D E E D
Park Ops / Forestry Parks & Recreation C B D D E E D
Pleasant View Restrooms Parks & Recreation C D B E E E D
Randolf Center Parking Parking C D A E C E D
Reynolds Library Libraries C B A D D E E
RTD Parking Structure Parking C D A E C E D
Scott Carpenter Athletic Center Parks & Recreation C E B E B E D
Scott Carpernter Bathhouse Parks & Recreation C E C E B D B
Stazio Ballfields Buildings Parks & Recreation C B D E E E C
Valmont Park Parks & Recreation C B B E E E C
63rd St WTP Water Treatment D E E C E E D
75th WTPP Water Treatment D D E C E E D
Age Well West Offices D E E E D D E
Atrium Offices D D D E E C E
Carnegie Library Libraries D E D E E E D
CV 1500 Pearl Offices D B D E D E E
Dairy Center Leased D D E E C E D
FAM & P&R Bldg Support Services D D B D D E E
Fire Station 3 Emergency Services D D D D E E E
Fire Station 6 Emergency Services D D E C E E E
Harbeck - Bergheim House Leased D B B E E E E
Mapleton Ballfields Building Parks & Recreation D E B E E E E
MSC A Blg Support Services D B E C E E E
Municipal Building Offices D E D D D E E
OSMP - Cherryvale North Offices D B C D E E E
Pearl St Mall Public Restrooms Parks & Recreation D C B E D E E
Pearl Street Mall Visitors Kiosk Parks & Recreation D D B E D E E
Pottery Lab Leased D E C E E E E
Radio Tower Equipment Shelters Support Services D E B C E E D
Resource Center (6400 Arapahoe)Leased D D C E E E D
South Boulder Rec Center Rec Center D E E C E E D
Spruce Pool Bathhouse Parks & Recreation D D D E E E D
Tea House Leased D E B E D E D
The Edge (1301 Arapahoe)Offices D D C E E E E
Betasso WTP Water Treatment E E E D E E E
Boulder Reservoir Boat House Parks & Recreation E E B E E E E
Boulder Reservoir Maintenance Parks & Recreation E E B E E E E
Center Green Offices E E E E E E E
Fire Truck Storage Bldg Support Services E E B D E E E
Flatiron Golf Pro Shop Support Services E E C E E E E
Foothills Maintenace Shop Support Services E E E D E E E
Justice Center Offices E E E E C E D
MSC B Blg Support Services E E E D E E E
Mustards Last Stand Leased E E E E D E E
New Britain Offices E D E E E E E
Park Central Offices E E E E E E E
Pleasant View Maintenance Shop Parks & Recreation E E E E E E D
Public Safety Center Emergency Services E E E D E D E
Roadway Building Support Services E E E E E E E
Salberg Parks & Recreation E E B E E E E
Tantra Park Maintenace Shop Support Services E E E D E E E
Tom Watson Parks & Recreation E E B E E E E
Valmont Butte Support Services E E E E E E E
Scoring -
All Core
Values
Summary - Letter GradesTiering Matrix
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
46
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
h
Summary of Building Analysis
The city needs to make critical and strategic decisions in many of the buildings today to address
failing infrastructure, respond to climate change, and better serve the community in the future.
Currently facilities have $55 million in deferred equipment and systems renewal across the
portfolio that will increase to $307 million by 2050 if current funding levels are maintained.
The condition of the city’s facility portfolio is “fair” – just under 10% – but will be in the critical
range by 2030 if current practices and approach towards building renewal are maintained.
The City of Boulder is currently not on a path to meet climate commitment goals. City
buildings are inefficient and consume too much energy. Across the building portfolio,
consumption needs to be reduced and carbon-using equipment (present in most city
buildings) needs to be eliminated in favor of renewable energy. This conversion requires deep
energy retrofits - like-for-like replacement of aging infrastructure will not close the gap in
meeting the city’s climate goals.
City buildings currently do not meet the FMP’s guiding principles. Many of the city’s buildings
are hard to find, un-inviting for community members, do not provide supportive or healthy
work environments, nor do they accommodate people of varying needs well.
It is time to address the city’s buildings in a holistic, strategic manner to accomplish local goals and
be fiscally responsible. There is an opportunity, and responsibility, to create a new legacy for the
future.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
47
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
CHARTING A
NEW
COURSE
Illustration Credit: William Wu
48
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Decision Framework
The FMP’s decision framework relies on the three pillars and six guiding principles described in
the first sections of this plan. It uses the quantitative and qualitative Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to evaluate and “score” buildings. This process identifies the best buildings,
i.e., those that support the city’s core services, enhance community interaction, and are
operating effectively. This process also identifies the worst buildings that fail in meeting critical
values and are increasingly expensive and inefficient to operate and maintain. The framework
provides a plan for addressing all the buildings that fall in between the best and worst to aid in
making decisions in where and how to invest wisely or repurpose the asset entirely.
There are 2 key initiatives recommended in this plan that bookend
3 strategic actions that can be taken with buildings that support those
initiatives.
The first key initiative is to maintain
city buildings well.
This is the primary objective; to put all city
buildings on a path towards this end where
we are effectively and efficiently
maintaining good buildings. Good buildings
are those that meet the FMP’s guiding
principles and climate goals, are resilient,
and functional, and serve the staff and
community well.
The second key initiative is to
consolidate services when and where
appropriate. The analysis of city buildings
and the services they contain within has
revealed huge benefit to moving quickly in a
direction towards consolidation. One quarter
of the building portfolio (about 20 buildings)
house services and uses that can be
considered for consolidation. By addressing
this portion of the building portfolio, the city
can cut the unfunded liability in half by 2030
and significantly accelerate progress towards
climate commitment goals.
CHARTING A NEW COURSE
49
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
The Decision Framework starts with a key question focused on the second key initiative,
consolidation of services, to guide decision making and ultimately the fate of a building. All
paths in the framework end in Maintain Well, the ultimate objective. If the asset, meaning the
building and site, will not be repurposed, there are three strategic actions that can be
taken, consolidated or not, that put the building on a path towards Maintain Well. These
Strategic Actions are:
1. Targeted Improvements
2. Deep Retrofits
3. Build New
The recommended strategic actions all have
the common end goals of:
Meeting qualitative aspirations
defined in building guiding principles.
Sustained FCI of 10% average across
building portfolio.
Achieving climate goals. Overall
reduction of energy consumption and
electrification of buildings whenever
possible.
Good governance of city buildings.
Effective and efficient operations and
maintenance of buildings to achieve
good financial stewardship.
These common goals will guide a Building
Assessment and the level of investment that
can be and should be made. The Building
Assessment uses these goals to evaluate
suitability of a structure for renovation or full
adaptive reuse and the level of investment
required compared to building new.
If a building will not be renovated or reused
for city services, then the city may
repurpose the asset, that is the building
and/or the site, to an entirely other use
which in many cases will mean
deconstruction of the building and/or sale of
the property.
BUILDING ASSESSMENT
Once goals for a building have been established, key
areas that should be investigated in support of the
goals are:
The Story of the building and its site – the
history of the building and site and its future,
as a city building or not, at this location and in
context of the BVCP and future of the city.
Site conditions – is the building in the right
location on the site or does the site have a
better use or purpose with the building
removed? (e.g., Pavilion – yes, Fleet Building –
no). Is the location of historic value that
should be considered?
Structural Integrity – is the structure fully
intact and ready to live on for another 100-
years?
Form of Building – is the building the right
form, size, shape for new services and uses? Is
it highly adaptable and flexible? Can the form
support building guiding principles when
renovated? Is the building of historic value?
CHARTING A NEW COURSE
In 2019, the city completed a Reuse Analysis
of the Medical Office Pavilion. The analysis
demonstrates how these key areas (story,
site, structure, and form) are assessed and
conclusions made about the suitability of the
Pavilion for reuse.
50
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Decision-Making Framework
WHAT IS THE FATE OF THIS ASSET?
CHARTING A NEW COURSE
51
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
REPURPOSING ASSETS
Buildings that are identified not to be reused to provide city services will need to undergo analysis of their
property’s value to the city and community – either economic, social or environmental. For instance, by
executing the consolidation strategy, the city will vacate space in more than 20 buildings. Some of these
buildings hold monetary value in resale but many hold greater social and/or environmental value. Once a
facility, or portion of a facility, is made available for other uses, the city should consider the value of that
facility in three areas:
Economic – what is the monetary value of selling or leasing the asset, at that time, and by disposing
of the asset, will the city avoid substantial operational or capital expenditures?
Social – is there an alternate civic use for the facility or site that would help the city meet other
planning goals (e.g., consolidating properties on the East Bookend of the Civic Area or converting a
property to a park or cultural facility)?
Environmental – by disposing of the asset, is the city improving safety, resiliency or reducing carbon
footprint by allowing a more resilient and sustainable building to take its place?
By valuing buildings in these three areas, the city can ensure that it is meeting its guiding principles for
facilities and serving as a prudent steward of city resources.
CHARTING A NEW COURSE
52
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Key Initiatives
Maintain Well
ANALYSIS
Maintaining buildings well is the end goal of all
activities in city buildings.
Good asset management and facilities
stewardship requires strategic and tactical plans
to ensure buildings are appropriately funded,
managed, and maintained. Proactive
maintenance techniques, such as preventive
and predictive maintenance, have been proven
as cost-effective strategies for increasing asset
life cycle, improving productivity, and reducing
unplanned downtime.
The goal of adopting practices and funding
programs that adhere to a Maintain Well
Initiative is to reduce the overall total cost of
ownership of the building asset.
Taking good care of city buildings is
fundamentally a resiliency strategy.
First, it represents a reduction in risk. Well
cared for facilities will support the city during
emergency operations. Second, by
maintaining facilities well, fiscal impacts
become more predictable and transparent.
Finally, in response to the environment, well
maintained buildings that undergo regular
commissioning keep energy use as low as
possible. In the future, there may be
increased poor outdoor air quality as a result
of increased wildfires, making our indoor
environments even more important to the
health and wellbeing of the community. The
COVID-19 pandemic also served as a lesson
for how important the air quality and ability
to provide fresh air is in buildings.
MAINTAINING BUILDINGS WELL IS:
Taking care of existing buildings and practicing good governance and stewardship of
expensive and long-lasting city assets.
Ensuring predictability and transparency in funding needs for capital renewal.
Providing flexibility and choice in how and when investment in buildings is needed to
serve the community, rather than reacting in crisis moments with large capital needs in
potentially poor fiscal environments.
Reducing the total cost of ownership of city buildings while providing maximum benefit to
people using the building.
52
KEY INITIATIVE
CHARTING A NEW COURSE
53
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
PREVENTATIVE AND PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE WHAT’S THE
DIFFERENCE?
53 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
Both approaches to proactive maintenance have a significant advantage to reactive maintenance
(also known as breakdown maintenance) which can be unpredictable, inconvenient, and
compromise productivity through increased downtime. For perspective, when weighing the
“cost-benefit” of these approaches, it’s important to consider the total cost of ownership of a
building and its equipment. While predictive maintenance carries the most “up-front” cost
during design and construction, it will pay dividends over the life cycle of an asset.
Both preventive maintenance and predictive maintenance are designed to increase the reliability of
assets and reduce the amount of reactivity to failures.
As an asset ages, specific components of
elements of the asset – pumps, motors,
electronics – start to fail and need repair.
This results in increasing maintenance
attention and cost of the asset. There is
an inflection point when the asset or
system should be replaced, and the
system renewed before maintenance
costs rapidly escalate. The upfront capital
renewal costs are offset by driving
maintenance costs back near zero on a
new asset.
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE is
generally performed on a routine
schedule, like annual roof inspections
or cleaning of mechanical filters. This
approach uses a “best estimate”
approach to scheduling maintenance
tasks “just-in-time” potentially
causing excessive maintenance and
increasing administrative burden.
PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE, increasingly
found in “smart buildings,” is scheduled
when called for by an asset and is based on
the asset condition. Predictive maintenance
requires a little more investment in the
design (i.e., need for monitoring equipment
and software) but can predict when failure
will occur using data-driven algorithms and
software systems.
54
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
54 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
FISCALLY CONSTRAINED
(Current Condition)
Currently the city contributes 0.5% of CRV
towards its facilities which is shown in the
chart under the Fiscally Constrained
(current condition). This has resulted in a
backlog of building replacement and
renewal needs of $55 million. Maintaining
the current funding approach and
investment in buildings will result in the
building portfolio falling into critical
condition by 2030 and a cumulative
unfunded liability of $120 million.
VISION PLAN
The Vision Plan funding priority which funds
buildings up to 4% demonstrates strategically
saving to invest in a planned way for both
infrastructure renewal and building
adaptation. At this level, renovations required
to update a building in response to changes in
service delivery, work standards, or code
requirements (an example would be our
Building Performance Ordinance
requirements) would be planned for and
funded.
FUNDING PRIORITIES
Many guidelines for facility renewal have been established – most notable is a pioneering study
conducted by the Building Research Board of the National Research Council, which highlighted
that underfunding of maintenance and repair is a widespread and persistent problem in public
buildings. These studies have concluded that appropriate annual budget allocations for
maintaining building assets is in the range of 2-4% of the buildings current replacement value
(CRV). There are two key aspects of this recommended range; building renewal, which accounts
for the anticipated like-for-like replacement of infrastructure such as boilers, chillers etc. and then
there is building adaptation which addresses the need for buildings to change in the future in
response to code updates, changes in how services are delivered etc. This second category,
building adaptation is harder to pinpoint specific future changes but it is certain that over a
building’s life space, renovations will be required to meet new needs.
ACTION PLAN
The Action Plan funding priority shown in the
chart budgets 2% CRV annually to address
building renewal needs. This is strategic savings
for known future costs to replace existing
equipment and systems that have generally
accepted standards of service life. Planning for
equipment replacement through the city’s asset
planning software is efficient and effective. At
this funding level, money is still needed to
address adaptation and likely funded much the
way it is today through one-time requests to
address an urgent need.
Operational expenditures continue to compensate for capital renewal funding resulting in fluctuating
and unpredictable costs. This approach encourages degradation of buildings and borrowing against
future needs of the building. This becomes an increasing risk and liability to the city. Climate goals and
guiding principles will not be achieved continuing this approach to funding buildings.
55
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
55 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
RECOMMENDED FUNDING PROGRAM
The building industry has identified a funding standard of 2-4% CRV be set aside to properly fund
building renewal needs to maintain a FCI of 10% - also a well-established industry standard
reflecting responsible stewardship of building assets.
The recommendation of this master plan is to fund the minimum industry standard of 2% CRV
identified as the Action Plan Funding Level. To this end, a budget request would be presented
during the annual budgeting process to fund at least 2% CRV moving forward on buildings that:
Were built within the last fifteen years (e.g., Fire Station 8, Reservoir Building, Scott
Carpenter Pool)
Have received recent significant investment in the renovation (e.g., Brenton Building)
Are new or have been deeply retrofitted
This approach provides fiscal flexibility for the city by appropriately managing risk and will put
buildings on a path to a well-sustained future.
56
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Consolidate Services
56 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
KEY INITIATIVE
ANALYSIS
In 2015 the city made a strategic purchase of the former Boulder Community Hospital (BCH)
site, sparking a vision to centralize a number of city services to this area. Over the past five
years, much discussion, engagement, assessment, and planning has been done to understand
the value of consolidation of many city services and the larger opportunity presented.
CONSOLIDATION CAN:
Better serve the community. Through
consolidation, the city can reduce overall
space needed to perform, execute, and deliver
city services. In the process of converting
space, it is possible to create better, more
engaging, inspiring, equitable, accessible,
healthy, and long-lasting built environments
that can adapt over time to future needs.
Existing buildings and properties can also be
repurposed towards better uses for the
community.
Meet city climate commitment goals by
converting roughly 25% of the building
portfolio to all-electric, high performing
buildings. Consolidation can drive another
20%-30% progress across the portfolio
towards these goals.
Be resilient. Consolidation is an opportunity to
literally build resiliency into delivery of city
services to adapt and quickly support the
community in times of crisis and chronic
stress.
Create a financially sustainable future by
reducing the unfunded liability of the total
building portfolio by half and putting city
buildings on a path towards good fiscal
stewardship.
57
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
The city has conducted several discrete
planning studies and building projects that
have informed this initiative. In 2018
conceptual plans for both the east and west
campuses were developed to test the
possibilities and uncover the challenges and
complexities these sites present. An urban
analysis was also conducted to understand
benefits of these sites' locations in relation to
major transportation corridors and where
people in the city live and conduct business.
High level cost estimates were generated to
quantify the rough order of magnitude of cost
to develop these sites and contrast that
against the costs inherent in simply
maintaining our current buildings as they are.
The conclusion from this analysis is that
consolidation of roughly 20 buildings, one –
quarter of the city’s portfolio – to two
centralized campuses is financially viable, will
enable the city to achieve climate goals as well
as social goals that could not otherwise be
achieved in buildings as they currently stand
and are maintained. Furthermore,
consolidation can make a significant positive
impact across our entire building portfolio
which will be demonstrated in the following
pages.
Buildings suitable for
consolidation house uses that can
be combined with other like uses
to create targeted efficiencies.
Buildings and properties vacated
hold social, financial, and
environmental value for the city.
For example, when the city
vacates space east of Central Park,
that will create opportunities for
community use in line with the
Civic Area Master Plan.
57 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
East Bookend Graphic from the Civic Area Master Plan
58
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
TARGETED EFFICIENCIES – SPACE, CARBON, MONEY
Space refers to the amount of building floor area
the city operates and maintains annually. Carbon
refers to the amount of carbon used in operating
buildings and the relationship to the City’s Climate
Commitment Goals. Money refers to the value of
current physical assets, the capital needed for
replacement, and annual operation and
maintenance expenses. Overall, money needs to
go farther.
Simply stated, when buildings are consolidated, it
is possible to be more efficient with how space is
used. Consolidation can reduce the city’s square
footage by roughly one third, helping drive carbon
use to zero. Consolidation can also reduce
operations and maintenance costs to half by
building smart, connected buildings, and
employing the proactive maintenance practices
discussed under the Maintain Well Initiative.
SPACE
Currently: redundant, dispersed spaces are
wasteful and contribute to greenhouse gas
emissions. Some buildings are used for purposes
never intended. Poor building conditions
negatively impact accessibility, customer service,
staff health, morale, productivity, and retention.
Some buildings are also in high-risk locations.
After Consolidation: more optimized space
usage resulting in less square footage per person
needed overall, but better-quality space. Better
experience for customers and the community in
accessing buildings and providing access and
equitable experience within buildings. Buildings
removed from high-risk areas, can provide
better resiliency. Chart shows efficiencies in
Gross Square Feet (GSF).
City facilities (excluding plants) make up 32% of
Green House Gas Emissions (GHG) but are
challenged to reduce emissions by 86% over
the baseline to achieve city goals. With existing
buildings, this can only be accomplished
through deep energy retrofits.
After Consolidation, the campus will have
high-performing buildings that are optimized
for energy efficiency. Full electrification of
buildings enables for all-renewables power
sourcing. Daily travels between dispersed
buildings will be eliminated.
MONEY
Currently: leasing is more expensive than
owning. Reactive maintenance is far more costly
than preventative maintenance. Inefficient
buildings and HVAC systems are more costly to
operate.
After Consolidation: all systems under one roof –
less Operational Expense (OpEx) of many
different systems creates efficiency. Optimized
maintenance practices can be employed. Systems
can be maintained proactively to extend their life
and lengthen time between system renewal
needs. The General Services Administration (GSA)
provides good benchmarks.
CARBON
Currently: buildings and their systems are
energy inefficient and wasteful. Impossible to
meet climate goals with current building stock.
Cost to update existing buildings is more than
the cost to liquidate and build new. Three
phases of Energy Performance Contracting have
already been completed to make energy
improvements in buildings.
58 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
59
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
59 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
As has been shown already, the
cumulative liability across the
entire building portfolio will be
$175 million by 2030.
When this is overlayed with the
current $2.3 million annual
funding, the cumulative
unfunded liability in 2030 is
reduced to $152 million dollars.
Consolidation of roughly six
buildings to Alpine-Balsam, the
Western City Campus, will
result in a 40% reduction in
unfunded liability across the
entire building portfolio. This is
achieved in two ways:
1. Six buildings with capital
infrastructure
replacement needs are
removed from the
portfolio which eliminates
their liability.
2. They are replaced with a
high performing building
that is efficiently operated
and maintained as
discussed in the Maintain
Well initiative. This results
in a 50% reduction in
O&M costs that can be
leveraged towards
consolidation.
Consolidation of the roughly
15 buildings to an Eastern City
Campus at the current
Municipal Service Center site
will result in an additional
60% reduction in unfunded
liability across the entire
building portfolio.
Unfunded Liability (UL) Across Entire Building Portfolio
Western City Campus Impact Reducing UL
Eastern City Campus Impact Reducing UL
60
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Consolidation of 20 buildings, 25% of the city building portfolio, cuts the Unfunded Liability across
the entire portfolio by more than 60%.
The unfunded liability gap goes from $100 million to less than $20 million. More importantly, with
buildings employing principles of the Maintain Well Initiative, they are more efficiently operated
and maintained. This results in stabilizing the unfunded liability well into the future.
These models do not take into account many other potential funding sources that could make this
even more compelling such as energy rebates, funds from disposal of certain properties, grants for
energy efficient, resilient infrastructure improvements, etc.
Consolidations Impact Reducing UL and Stabilizing into Future Entire Across Building Portfolio
This plan recommends that the city pursue
consolidation of buildings into two
campuses – one at Alpine Balsam and the
other at the Municipal Service Center
(adjacent to Valmont City Park). The
Penfield W. Tate II Municipal Building in the
Civic Area will be preserved as the historic
civic heart of the municipal government.
Specifically, this means pursuing a strategy
over the next several years that:
Diverts capital investments and
projects away from current buildings,
limiting improvements to what is
essential, and leverages these
resources towards consolidation.
Seizes real estate opportunities that
support this approach (strategic and
timely acquisition or disposal) to
achieve financial, social, and
environmental value for the city and
Boulder community (example Park
Central and New Britain, once
vacated).
Creates high-performing buildings and
sites to achieve guiding principles.
Proceeds with development of new
funding structures that support
consolidation and proactive care of
buildings to limit TCO.
RECOMMENDATIONS
61
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
The year 2020 changed work forever, impacting individuals and workplaces across the globe. Boulder was no
exception. Multiple research studies continue to show that most workers across all sectors seek to return to
work in a hybrid mode – spending some time in the office, and the remainder of time working remotely. The
2021 Work Trend Index Annual Report by Microsoft identifies a path forward into this hybrid world:
Create a plan to empower people for extreme flexibility - “Every organization will need a plan that puts
people at the center and encompasses policy, physical space, and technology.” (p.25)
Invest in space and technology to bridge the physical and digital worlds.
Combat digital exhaustion and isolation.
Prioritize rebuilding social capital and culture.
Rethink employee experience and compete for the best and most diverse talent.
The Facilities Department is on the cutting edge of
this change with the development of several
“curiosity labs” that will test the concepts of hybrid
work. These curiosity labs, located in Park Central and
the Municipal Building will provide opportunities for
enhanced hybrid meetings (including public meetings)
and explore ideas around shared workspaces
designed to eliminate silos and enhance collaboration
and culture. It is intentional investigation into what
works and what doesn’t to inform our future
campuses and potential for increased space efficiency
while also providing better, more innovative, and
supportive space for staff and the community.
61 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
The hybrid work model will be a valuable tool
to address a growing community in the future
as the city keeps pace with service delivery
needs. The pressure for additional office space
can be relieved through more flexible work
arrangements. The workplace is rapidly
evolving to provide a more amenity rich
environment better supporting an innovative,
collaborative culture with an overall reduced
square footage need. The ramifications of
leveraging hybrid work extend to reduced
stress on transportation systems.
New, flexible meeting
and workspaces
created in existing
buildings through
reduction in
individual offices.
Coined “Curiosity
Labs: these new
spaces are being
used to learn what
environments best
support staff work
and customer service
in a post-pandemic
world that utilizes
more virtual services.
LESSONS FROM COVID-19 AND HYBRID WORK
62
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
FINANCIAL TOOLKIT
62
Given the scale, timeline, and efficiencies associated with consolidation, the city has at least four
financing mechanisms or tools it can consider with complete consolidation which will likely include
some combination of these. The city also has several alternate funding streams to consider alongside
choices around financing. This master plan has not included any of these tools described below in the
charts on pages 59 and 60, which present savings and efficiency from consolidation, making them
highly conservative in showing the future potential.
FINANCING MECHANISMS
Bonds – A loan to the city with capital provided upfront and principal and interest paid back
over time, typically 15 to 30 years. Low interest rate for the city on the debt, assets held by
the city. Requires voter approval which impacts timing.
Certificates of Participation (COPs) – Investors purchase lease-shares of a capital project,
which entitles them to future lease revenues paid by the city. Low interest rate on debt,
assets held by the city. Does not require voter approval, can move more quickly on
opportunity.
Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) – A business model where private investors
provide upfront capital to advance a project with guaranteed energy savings identified to pay
back the loan. Interest rates are higher, city holds the assets. Does not require voter
approval.
Energy as a Service / Infrastructure as a Service (EaaS/IaaS) – Like ESPC, however assets are
owned by a third party and the city leases equipment, etc. Risks of development and
performance shift to third party. Higher interest rates, assets are off balance sheet. Does not
require voter approval.
FUNDING STREAMS
District Energy and Waste Heat Recovery – Exploration of district energy at Alpine-Balsam
that included public engagement has already taken place and is a viable consideration. The
Eastern City Campus also could take advantage of district energy, which looks beyond
singular building solutions to drive energy and cost down, making the whole site more
efficient and in turn, improving paybacks and ROI. Waste Heat Recovery is another exciting
option that will be explored extending further potential for energy savings.
Rebates, Incentive Programs and Grants – Designed to accelerate the transition to more
efficient and decarbonized buildings, utilities, government, and state agencies, offer energy
incentive programs that help make building improvements more accessible. These can take
the form of rebate incentives or loans for qualified purchases. Grants provide upfront funding
from federal and state agencies to provide additional financial assets to transition to cleaner
energy and build more resilient infrastructure.
Property Disposal – Sale of properties the city vacates through consolidation. Page 51
discusses how the city values and can consider re-purposing assets, some of which hold
monetary value.
CHARTING A NEW COURSE
63
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
63 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
FINANCIAL TOOLKIT
Risk – assumed by either the city or outside investor to ensure the assets
performance.
Cost of $ - the cost of financing options and specifically the interest rate we pay on
borrowed money.
Ownership or control of asset – the city’s flexibility and ability to change or adapt
easily in the future.
Voter Approval – some financial mechanisms require while others do not, impacting
how quickly the city can act on opportunities.
On/Off Balance Sheet - is the asset and debt carried on the balance sheet or not. On
balance sheet can present a risk to the credit rating but its advantageous to leverage
assets as collateral for other city projects.
Scope – economy of scale of project can greatly impact outside investor interest and
payback periods.
Time – specifically when money is needed to advance an aspect of development it is
directly impacted in that current moment by the fiscal health of the city, and overall
economic factors such as interest rates, material and labor costs
Weighing the Options
The financing mechanisms and different funding
streams each come with various tradeoffs that
must be weighed against each other along with
their impact on other city-wide projects,
initiatives and goals. The following are some of
the key factors when assessing tradeoffs
between options. These considerations will be
further analyzed and shared through the detailed
Consolidation Master Plan and Financial Strategy
development.
64
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
FUNDING PRIORITIES
The city is faced with an aging building portfolio that currently is seeing exponentially increasing
unfunded liability costs that will be roughly $95 million by 2030. Significant investments in the
buildings are required no matter what course of action is chosen, however the current course we
are on will spend the money and result in not meeting any of the city’s goals. Consolidation –
whether pursued aggressively or over time – drives towards meeting the city’s climate goals and
social values in addition to being fiscally responsible. The city has already made a strategic decision
towards consolidation of a Western City Campus at Alpine-Balsam. Continuing this strategic
direction towards consolidation of an Eastern City Campus, the city will experience significant
efficiency, financial savings, and achievement of climate and social goals in stark contrast to
maintaining the current path.
64 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
The city has already departed from current coarse
by taking the first step to consolidate to a new
Western City Campus at Alpine-Balsam. An annual
debt services has been programmed to begin when
construction starts for the renovation of the
Pavilion building and associated site
improvements. Design work to create a Western
City Campus at Alpine-Balsam is planned to begin
in the fall of 2021.
The purpose of the Facilities Master Plan is to
establish intent to continue to pursue this new
strategic direction to consolidate services to two
centralized campuses within the city. Following
acceptance of the 2021 FMP, a detailed
Consolidation Master Plan and Financial Strategy will
be developed that demonstrate specific
development options and phases, accompanied by
the financial mechanisms that can be leveraged in
each option to realize the goals of this initiative. The
work will outline an approach – both to development
and financing – to achieve consolidation by 2030 and
then evaluate alternatives and implications to
prolonging development.
A Consolidation Master Plan and Financial Strategy is a project and process that will provide
opportunities for public review and input. At a minimum, funding aspects will be brought through
the annual budgeting process and development of buildings and infrastructure on the two sites will
be carried out through the city’s regulatory planning process.
65
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
FUNDING APPROACHES
This master planning process has highlighted key elements that can be expected at these
three funding levels. Further exploration of the financial strategy will fill in the gaps.
Fiscally Constrained Approach (Current Condition)
Limited strategy for just a few buildings, not strategic approach for remaining buildings
resulting in high risk of unplanned failure in buildings not being consolidated.
Need at least $95 million by 2030 to keep infrastructure from failure, yet this approach
will not result in meeting any climate or social goals.
Spending in this scenario will be reactive, sporadic, and often unplanned.
This approach does not result in energy or operational savings to fund future
investments, minimizing financing tools available to address infrastructure needs.
The reactive dollar is weaker than the proactive dollar. This is the least fiscally
responsible approach.
There are two general approaches to advancing consolidation that will be accompanied by a
funding strategy. However, before a throughout financial assessment is completed, it is
premature to suggest which is an “Action Plan” or “Vision Plan.” Following are key
characteristics of the two approaches that will be evaluated in further detail following
adoption of the Facilities Master Plan.
ACT NOW- Pursue Consolidation by 2030: will result in lowest total cost of ownership and will
most quickly advance the city towards meeting climate goals and social values in city
buildings.
Strategic approach to move out of failing buildings before investing more in them.
Meet environmentally sustainable pillar values and climate commitment goals in
buildings.
Leverage most financing tools towards project to realize goals.
Hedge against inflation and construction escalation costs.
PROLONGUED APPROACH – Advance Consolidation More Incrementally Over Longer
Timeframe: will advance city towards environmental and social goals by incurs greater risks
along the path.
65 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
Strategic approach to move out of
failing budlings but may require large
investments in current buildings as
systems will fail before buildings can be
vacated.
Less financing tools available to deliver
project, which risks not fully realizing
total consolidation.
Risks of inflation and construction
escalation.
Risk realizing fully consolidation.
Risk being able to deliver on
environmental and social pillar values.
66
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Summary of Funding Priorities
CHARTING A NEW COURSE
These two Key Initiatives – Maintain Well and Consolidate Services – are linked together in
the ultimate success towards the goals laid out in this plan. With advancement of
consolidation, buildings are put on a path towards being maintained well which benefits the
entire building portfolio.
FISCALLY CONSTRAINED (Current Condition) - The current funding approach for facilities
provides less than adequate planned renewal funding which in turn requires annual one-time
contributions from departments, the general fund, and bonds to augment the annual capital
investment. This results in uneven investment in city facilities and a tendency to allow
facilities to accumulate unfunded liabilities (through facility and
infrastructure degradation). This master plan provides the Facilities Department with clear
priorities for maintaining and constructing facilities, but without a consistent funding source
as recommended in the Maintain Well Key Initiative it will be difficult to fully implement this
ACTION AND VISION PLAN – The Maintain Well Key Initiative recommends a funding plan for
newly invested in city buildings that will result in significant savings over current spending in
operations and maintenance (O&M) budgets. Currently, the city spends ~$11/sf from O&M
budgets to maintain buildings, which is subsidizing a lack of adequate funding for building
renewal. Industry standards on new high performing buildings indicate annual O&M should be
about ~$5/sf and the city’s experience on the recently renovated Brenton Building
demonstrates costs to operate and maintain that building are beating those industry standards.
Implementation of the Key Initiative to Consolidate Services relies on these O&M savings
attained through implementation of the Maintain Well Key Initiative. In this way these Key
Initiatives are linked together and success of one is predicated on the success of the other.
(Current Condition)
67
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
CHARTING A NEW COURSE
Implementing the Funding Priorities
The Consolidation Initiative provides a strategy for roughly 25% of the building portfolio to
transition out of current buildings and away from a need to invest further in these buildings. A
Consolidation Master Plan and Financial Strategy will be developed following master plan
acceptance to provide options for financing and implementation, which will be the funding plan
for these buildings.
Remaining buildings in the portfolio will be assessed using the Decision-Making Framework
(page 50) for which Strategic Action (page 68-72) should be taken to address deficiencies and
capital needs. As warranted, Vision Plan levels of funding may be requested, with justifications,
on certain buildings or the consolidated campuses.
Keys to Success
The key to advancing the Consolidate Services Initiative and to a slightly lesser degree the
Maintain Well Initiative is to use savings from reduced energy, operating and maintenance
costs to help finance facility investments. The tools described in the Financial Toolkit can only
be fully leveraged if quantified monetary savings from efficiencies are captured and used to
repay debt in any of the scenarios presented. Using this principle, it is likely that the master
plan key initiatives could be viewed as projects that would support its own financing (through
any of the mechanisms in the toolkit). Holding onto these savings from improved operations
and rededicating them back to funding facility improvements is essential to the success of the
master plan. Siphoning savings from facilities towards other city priorities will undermine
advancement of these Initiatives and likely result in continued degradation of city assets and
continuation of a piecemeal, reactive approach to facilities.
As part of the detailed financial strategy developed for the Consolidate Services Initiative, the
Facilities Department will also make recommendations to restructure and centralize the
funding model for facilities rehabilitation, replacement, and maintenance that is
commensurate with the needs identified through this master planning process. Initial estimates
of the overall portfolio need are approximately $11 million annually as shown on the charts on
page 34 of this document.
68
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Strategic Actions
Targeted Improvements
Targeted improvements in buildings includes discrete equipment or systems replacement,
limited remodels, and small additions. Key characteristics of these improvements are:
Improvements required to limited systems.
Small disruption and low cost to achieve measurable value.
Today, there are city buildings that are in good
condition and would not be considered as part of a
consolidation strategy that require targeted
improvements to meet city-wide goals and
maintain an FCI of 10%.
As other buildings are built or improved because
of the recommendations from this master plan
there will come a time when they require targeted
improvements to meet current needs of the
community and keep systems in optimal condition.
Prior to the FMP, this has been the predominate
approach in all city buildings, to fix what is
breaking right now. Targeted improvements will
now be recommended in buildings taking better
into consideration the improvements impact on
TCO, other city-wide goals, and the buildings fate.
The FMP guides appropriate levels of investment
in these types of improvements to prolong a
buildings life as part of the annual Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) process.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Prioritize buildings for targeted improvements based on the Facilities Master Plan Key
Initiatives using the Decision Making Framework.
Incorporate into annual CIP
Main Library – Recent building controls upgrade.
North Boulder Recreation Center – Targeted
Improvements for HVAC equipment and in the
building, envelope will be recommended.
68 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
STRATEGIC ACTION
69
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Deep Retrofit
A Deep Retrofit, commonly known in the industry as a Deep Energy Retrofit, is a whole
building approach to renewal and revitalization of a structure that results in significant energy
efficiency – normally more than 50%, and extensive renovation and refresh of the interior
which meets needs and goals of the community and population the building serves. A Deep
Retrofit is highly disruptive, even if limited to a wing or area of a building. It is highly invasive
from a construction perspective and requires full shut-down of area or building to complete.
Conducting these types of retrofits while a building is occupied can be done but is normally
cost prohibitive.
The city has buildings that are well sited in the community, are historic, and need to be
preserved, but require extensive renovation and upgrades to meet financial, environmental
and social goals. A Building Assessment as discussed in Section 2 can identify good candidates
for a Deep Retrofit.
A high-performing building envelop was
built back to seal and highly insulate the
building. In addition to making the building
80% more efficient, many other guiding
principles were achieved through the
renovation including provision of a more
welcoming customer experience and better
workplace environment for staff.
Following the renovation of the Brenton
Building and with new insights into what is
required to convert poorly performing
buildings into high-performing ones that
enable the city to meet its climate
commitment goals – the city conducted
holistic building assessments of three of its
buildings that need major equipment and
systems renewals. The analysis evaluated
two different paths – optimized energy
savings and optimized cost efficiency. The
studies of the Penfield W. Tate II Municipal
Building, East Boulder Community Center
and the Municipal Service Center – Building
A can be found in the appendix.
69 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
STRATEGIC ACTION
CASE STUDY
The city completed a Deep Energy Retrofit
of the Brenton Building back in 2018. The
building was vacant at the time. The
exterior envelop was poorly performing, the
mechanical systems were old and
inefficient. The layout inside was carved up
as numerous medical suits and a surgery
center. The retrofit consisted of gutting the
building down to the concrete structure and
original exterior shell. All mechanical
systems were removed and replaced with
an all-electric variable refrigerant flow
system.
70
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Facilities Department has identified two buildings that are recommended for Deep
Retrofits:
Penfield W. Tate II Municipal Building
East Boulder Community Center (EBCC)
Funding for EBCC is being considered currently as part of the potential Community, Culture,
and Safety tax renewal.
Funding for the Penfield W. Tate II Municipal Building could be considered as part of the
larger consolidation effort.
The Facilities Department will collaborate with other departments and coordinate with
goals of their Master Plans to identify other buildings that should be considered for Deep
Retrofits.
70 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
71
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Build New
The city will need to build new buildings
over the coming decades, both for
consolidation and for more specific uses,
such as a new fire station. New buildings
will be durable and long lasting, energy
efficient, and flexible for changing needs.
New buildings will also be designed to
meet the guiding principles while also
meeting the specific needs of their
department’s programs.
Built to last, built for future generations.
New building in the city should be
designed to these goals. The city will need
to build new buildings over the next
decade and beyond – both for
consolidation and more specific use
buildings, like Fire Stations when the city is
required to bring services closer to its
residents. New buildings should strive to
meet the FMP guiding principles while
meeting the specific needs of their
department’s programs.
NEW BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS:
Built to last: structures that are durable and long-lasting.
Built for adaptability: building form that lends itself to alternate uses, regular and as
open as possible.
Systems adaptations: plan for future technology during building renewal by making
systems easily accessible.
Build high-performing buildings that are predictive, connected, and responsive.
Net zero construction.
Reduction of embodied energy over life cycle: make material and systems choices that
lower the total embodied energy of the building over its life span.
Build for health: buildings are one of the biggest contributing factors to human health.
As air quality degrades, indoor environments will be critical to resiliency.
Build for the community we serve and the people working in the buildings.
71 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
STRATEGIC ACTION
72
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Existing buildings in this category that are slated for replacement will be prioritized when
identified in other departments’ master plans.
EXAMPLES
North Boulder Branch Library
Fire Station 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Work with individual departments to use the FMP to assess their facility recommendations
to build new and then build those building with the FMP as a guide.
72 CHARTING A NEW COURSE
73
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
WHERE WE GO
FROM HERE
74
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
The Facilities Department is already looking forward to the update of the Facilities Master
Plan. The FMP update will be a tremendous opportunity to report on the progress of the Key
Initiatives from this first FMP. Now, with many data collection tools and key performance
metrics in place, it will be possible to measure quantifiably progress on consolidation, climate
goals in buildings, and how far down the path we are towards better financial stewardship of
city buildings. We anticipate sharing case studies and lessons learned along the way.
This first Facility Master Plan’s overarching objective is to point city building infrastructure in
a new direction and create a common and holistic approach in how city buildings are
designed, built, operated, maintained and funded. Now on a new path, in subsequent
updates we can dive deeper into some of the details around building standards, service
delivery, and fine tune our operations and maintenance of buildings.
Future updates could include the following:
Revised funding structure that reflects how we build, use, operate and maintain
buildings.
Guidelines and standards for all buildings grounded in our guiding principles.
Annual budgeting process and determine additional funding to achieve the FMP.
Leased building / properties strategic plan that identifies mission, vision, and values
for when the city is involved in leasing.
We are on the road to good financial stewardship of one of our most expensive and asset
categories – our buildings. The path created in this plan leads us to operational excellence.
Immediate Next Steps
With guidance from City Council, the Facilities Department will be working on these next
steps:
1. Implementing workplace transformation and hybrid work in several key city
buildings and bringing staff and customers back to these buildings.
2. Develop Consolidation Master Plan and Financial Strategy to demonstrate phased
development options accompanied by financial mechanisms that support the
various ways to realize full consolidation.
3. Completing the redevelopment of the Western City Hub at Alpine-Balsam and
realizing Phase 1 of the consolidation strategy.
4. Proceeding with redevelopment of the Municipal Service Center site as the Eastern
City Hub and coordinating with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and other
Department Master Plan goals for this area.
5. Using the Facilities Department website to show dashboards linked to the Asset
Planner database to demonstrate, in real time, the conditions of city buildings.
Updates to the Facilities Master Plan
WHERE WE GO FROM HERE
75
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Conclusion
This Facilities Master Plan creates a new vision to enrich lives through buildings. The
actions of this City Council have paved the way for a new legacy in our city buildings that
anticipates the needs of tomorrow while addressing the most immediate needs of today.
The Facilities Department has a clear mission: to care for our buildings now and imagine
the buildings of our future. And we have a clear set of guiding principles to hold as a
common standard across all city buildings.
We are on the road to good financial stewardship of one of our most expensive and
valuable asset categories – our buildings. The path created in this plan leads us to
operational excellence.
WHERE WE GO FROM HERE
76
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
APPENDIX
77
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Appendix A - Glossary
Adaptation Needs / Adaptive Renewal: The process of funding and repurposing buildings for viable new uses
and modern functions, other than those originally intended to address present-day renewal needs. Building
adaptations allows for a building’s continued use and helps it remain a viable community asset. An example
would be compliance with new building codes or deep retrofits to achieve sustainability goals.
Asset Sustainability Target: A measure of good financial stewardship of buildings, typically defined as an FCI
threshold of 10%. This states that less than 10% of a buildings CRV is in a state of deferral.
Building Life Cycle: Refers to the view of a building over the course of its entire life, taking into consideration
the design, construction, operation, and disposal of the asset.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP): A six-year plan designating key investments in major city infrastructure
or facilities. The plan includes estimates of project funding requirements as well as revenue projections. The
CIP serves as a statement of the city’s long-term investment priorities.
Current Replacement Value (CRV): The financial resources needed to reconstruct a facility in like kind given
prevailing labor and supply costs.
Deep Energy Retrofit: A whole-building approach to energy conservation through holistic improvements to
the entire energy system within a building. For example, HVAC technology improvements drive efficiency, but
further and deeper savings can be achieved when paired with thermal envelope improvements and controls.
Deferred Maintenance: Refers to the practice of deferring, or delaying, and backlogging capital renewal
needs within buildings due to budget limitations or lack of funding.:
Energy Savings Performance Contracting: A budget-neutral approach to make building improvements that
reduce utility use and increase operational efficiency.
Facility Condition Index (FCI): An industry standard metric used to objectively assess the current and
projected condition of a building. Defined as the ratio of current year renewal needs to current building
replacement value.
Key Performance Indicators (KPI): A quantifiable measure used to evaluate the success of an activity,
practice, etc., in meeting objectives for performance.
Operations and Maintenance (O&M): The functions, duties and labor associated with the daily operations
and normal repairs, replacement of parts and structural components, and other activities needed to preserve
an asset so that it continues to provide acceptable services and achieves its expected life.
Predictive Maintenance: A proactive maintenance technique, using monitoring equipment, data-informed
algorithms, and software, to predict when failure will occur. By current estimates, predictive maintenance
techniques can increase the useful life of buildings and systems by 20-25%.
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): A metric that determines the overall cost of a building asset throughout its
lifecycle. The calculation methodology considers the design and construction costs, in addition to the
operational costs over the asset’s lifespan.
Unfunded Liability: The projected debts accumulated over time associated with capital renewal within the
building asset, less the current and projected funding available to address the lifecycle needs of the building.
APPENDIX A
78
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Appendix B – List of Facilities Included in the Plan
Asset Building Use Address Current
Replacement
Value (CRV)
Facility
Size
(sqft)
For
Consolidation
Buildings
General
Fund
Dedicated
Fund
Non-
city
Funding
Valmont Butte 6379
Valmont Rd
No X X
Boulder
Reservoir Boat
House
Accessory 5151 North
51st
$534,350 2,000 No X X
Boulder
Reservoir
Maintenance
Building
Accessory 5151 North
51st
$1,870,225 5,000 No X X
Flatiron Golf
Pro Shop
Accessory 5706
Arapahoe
Ave
$1,671,607 4,469 No X X
Pearl St Mall
Public
Restrooms
Accessory 1303 Pearl St $246,870 924 No X X
Pearl St Mall
Visitor Kiosk
Accessory 1300 Pearl St $130,916 490 No X X
Radio Tower
Equip. Shelters
Accessory N/A $90,840 340 No X
Salberg Accessory 19th & Elder
(3045 19th)
$1,366,760 3,654 No X X
Tom Watson Accessory 6180 N 63rd
St
$650,625 1,522 No X X
APPENDIX B
79
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Fire Station 1 Fire Station 2441 13th St $4,667,601 7,941 No X
Fire Station 2 Fire Station 2225
Baseline Rd
$2,541,903 4,757 No X
Fire Station 3
(Old)
Fire Station 1585 30th St $3,291,596 6,160 No X
Fire Station 4 Fire Station 4100 Darley
Ave
$1,869,156 3,498 No X
Fire Station 5 Fire Station 4365 19th St $1,985,645 3,716 No X
Fire Station 6 Fire Station 5145 N 63rd
St
$1,835,492 3,435 No X
Fire Station 7 Fire Station 1380 55th St $2,715,032 5,081 No X
Fire Station 8
(Wild Lands)
Fire Station 6075
Reservoir Rd
$6,623,161 11,268 No X
Fire Training
Center
Fire Station 6055
Reservoir Rd
$10,395,566 17,686 No X
Fire Truck
Storage
Building…
EcoCycle
Fire Station 5050 Pearl St $1,956,255 5,230 No X
BMoCA Leased 1750 13th St $9,671,414 16,454 No X X
Chautauqua
Dining Hall
Leased 900 Baseline
Rd
$3,077,642 5,236 No X X X
Dairy Center Leased 2590 Walnut
St
$19,493,302 33,164 No X X
Harbeck-
Bergheim
House + Beach
Park
Leased 1206 Euclid
Ave
$3, 154,054 5,366 No X
APPENDIX B
80
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Mustards Last
Stand
Leased 1719
Broadway
$- 772 No X X
Pottery lab Leased 1010 Aurora
Ave
$1,890,317 3,216 No X
Resource
Center
Leased 6400
Arapahoe Rd
$10,857,992 25,400 No X
Tea House Leased 1770 13th St $2,289,423 3,895 No X X
Carnegie Library Library 1125 Pine St $3,174,039 5,400 No X
Main Library Library 1001
Arapahoe
Ave
$45,291,506 84,760 Yes X
Meadows
Library
Library 4800
Baseline Rd
$4,591,776 7,812 No X
North Boulder
Branch
Library 4600
Broadway
$293,893 500 No X
Reynolds
Library
Library 3595 Table
Mesa
$6,095,918 10,371 No X
Atrium Office 1300 Canyon
Blvd
$5,536,721 12,952 Yes X
Brenton
Building
Office 1136 Alpine
Ave
$9,233,568 21,600 Yes X
Child, Youth
and Family
Services
Office 2160 Spruce
St
$2,229,308 5,215 Yes X
Community
Vitality (1500
Pearl)
Office 1500 Pearl St $2,351,140 5,500 Yes X
FAM & P&R
Bldg
Office 1720 13th St $2,334,041 5,460 Yes X X
APPENDIX B
81
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Iris Center Office 3198
Broadway
$6,394,673 14,959 Yes X X
Justice Center Office 1777 6th
Street
$3,103,505 7,260 Yes X
Municipal
Building
Office 1777
Broadway
$9,715,765 22,728 Yes X
New Britain Office 1101
Arapahoe
Ave
$5,689,759 13,310 Yes X
OSMP
Cherryvale -
North Building
Office 66 South
Cherryvale
Rd
$2,325,491 5,440 Yes X
OSMP Offices
Annex (Red
Deer Dr)
Office 7315 Red
Deer Drive
$4,321,823 10,110 Yes X
Park Central Office 1739
Broadway
$8,074,670 18,889 Yes X
The Edge Office 1301
Arapahoe
$806,227 1,886 Yes X
West Age Well
Center
Office 909
Arapahoe Dr
$9,258,202 15,751 Yes X x
OSMP Hub Office/Leased 2520 55th St $12,824,400 30,000 Yes X
10th & Walnut Parking 10th &
Walnut
$28,277,802 252,000 No X
11th & Spruce Parking 1100 Spruce $691,171 7,186 No X
1500 Pearl Parking 1500 Pearl St $1,579,902 16,426 No X
Broadway
Parking
Structure
Parking 2655 N
Broadway
$11,372,005 118,233 No X
APPENDIX B
82
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Randolf Center
(Parking)
Parking 1100 Walnut
St
$15,030,902 156,274 No X
RTD Parking 14th And
Walnut
$9,618,300 100,000 No X
Public Safety
Center
Police 1805 33rd St $52,304,636 88,986 Yes X
East Boulder
Community
Center
Rec Center 5660 Sioux
Dr
$32,379,312 55,087 No X X
North Boulder
Rec Center
Rec Center 3170
Broadway
$36,540,242 62,166 No X X
South Boulder
Rec Center
Rec Center Gillaspie Dr $20,926,909 35,603 No X X
Boulder
Reservoir
Visitor Services
Center
Rec/Seasonal 5151 North
51st
$- 7,500 No X X
Foothills
Maintenance
Shop
Rec/Seasonal 800 Cherry
Ave
$932,761 2,182 No X X
Mapleton
Ballfields
Building
Rec/Seasonal 2900
Mapleton
$240,458 900 No X X
Pleasant View
restrooms
Rec/Seasonal 3805 47th St $141,603 530 No X X
Scott Carpenter
- Athletic Office
Rec/Seasonal 1505 30th St $747,235 1,748 No X X
Scott Carpenter
Bathhouse
Rec/Seasonal 1505 30th St $3,459,703 5,886 No X X
APPENDIX B
83
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Spruce Pool
Bathhouse
Rec/Seasonal 2102 Spruce
St or 2040
21st St
$773,739 1,810 No X X
Stazio Ballfields
Buildings
Rec/Seasonal 2445 Stazio
Dr
$1,375,951 5,150 No X X
Valmont Park Rec/Seasonal 5110
Valmont Rd
$115,420 432 No X X
Fleet Services Service 5064 Pearl St $10,624,588 24,854 Yes X
MSC 'A' Building Service 5050 Pearl St $14,949,403 34,971 Yes X
MSC 'B'
Buildings
Service 5050 Pearl St $10,763,091 25,178 No X
OSMP
Cherryvale -
South Building
Service 66 South
Cherryvale
Rd
$2,261,369 5,290 No X
Park Operations
/ Forestry
Service 5200 Pearl St $4,306,006 10,073 Yes X X
Pleasant View
maintenance
shop
Service 3805 47th St 200 No X X
Roadway
Building
Service 4990 Pearl St $1,709,920 4,000 No X X
Tantra Park
Maintenance
Shop
Service 585 Tantra
Dr
$1,308,944 3,062 No X X
The OSMP Shop Service 7455 Red
Deer Drive
$3,429,245 8,022 Yes X
APPENDIX B
84
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Appendix C – Guiding Principles, BVCP
Policies, and Industry References
Economical Guiding Principle
Industry and Community Resources:
• United States General Services Administration – High Performance Green Buildings
• City of Boulder Capital Improvement Program
• Ameresco Asset Planner
• City of Boulder Climate Commitment
• BVCP Policy 5.01 – Revitalizing Commercial & industrial Areas
• BVCP Policy 5.08 – Funding City Services & Urban Infrastructure
Sustainable Guiding Principle
Industry and Community Resources:
• City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code (COBECC)
• USGBC LEED
• Green Globes Building Certification
• ILFI's Living Building Challenge
• ILFI's Net Zero Energy Building Certification (NZEB)
• GBCI's The Sustainable SITES Initiative
• IWBI's WELL Building Standard
• International Green Construction Code (IgCC)
• Climate Commitment
• Environmental Sustainability Plan (County)
• Environmental Resource Element (County)
• Zero Waste Strategic Plan
• Solid Waste Element & Zero Waste Action Plan (County)
• Sustainable Materials Management Element (County)
• Water Efficiency Plan
• BVCP Policy 3.01 Incorporating Ecological Systems into Planning
• BVCP Policy 3.11Urban Environmental Quality
• BVCP Policy 3.13 Water Conservation
• BVCP Policy 3.26-3.32 Sustaining & Improving Water & Air Quality
• BVCP Policy 4.03-4.06 Energy Conservation & Renewable Energy
• BVCP Policy 4.07 & 4.08 Energy-Efficient Land Use & Building Design
• BVCP Policy 4.09-4.11 Waste Minimization, Recycling & Sustainable Purchasing
• BVCP Policy 4.01 Climate Action: Reduce GHG Emissions
• BVCP Policy 5.12 Sustainable Business Practices
• BVCP Policy 6.11-6.19 Integration of Land Use and Transportation with Sustainability
Initiatives
APPENDIX C
85
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
• BVCP Policy 6.20 Improving Air Quality & Reducing GHG Emissions
Resilient Guiding Principle
Industry and Community Resources:
• https://www.resilientdesign.org
• https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Sustainability/Building-Resilience/
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128162408/optimizing-community-
infrastructure
• https://www.iccsafe.org/about/periodicals-and-newsroom/resilience-in-the-buildings-
codes/
• https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/resilience/resilient-building-design
• Fire-Rescue Master Plan
• Resiliency Strategy
• 2018 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
• All-Hazards Recovery Plan (OEM)
• Disaster Debris Management Guide (State)
• Police Master Plan
• Forest & Grassland Ecosystem Management Plans (OSMP)
• BVCP Policy 3.16-3.25 Protecting Geologic Resources & Reducing Risks from Natural
Hazards
• BVCP Policy 4.02 Climate Adaption Planning
• BVCP Policy 5.15 Economic Resilience
• BVCP Policy 6.22 Emergency Response Access
• BVCP Policy 8.01 Providing for a Broad Spectrum of Human Needs (Resiliency)
• BVCP Policy 8.09 Resilience in Public Safety & Risk Prevention
Experiential Guiding Principle
Industry and Community Resources:
• Community Cultural Plan
• Water Utility Master Plan
• Integrated Pest Management Policy
• Historic Preservation Plan
• BVCP Policy 1.06 City's Role in Managing Growth & Development
• BVCP Policy 1.09 & 1.10 Growth Requirements & Jobs: Housing Balance
• BVCP Policy 1.11 Enhanced Community Benefit2.01 Unique Community Identity
• BVCP Policy 2.03 Compact Development Pattern
• BVCP Policy 2.20 Role of the Central Area
• BVCP Policy 2.22-2.26 Public Realm, Urban Design & Linkage
• BVCP Policy 2.28 Leadership in Preservation: City & County Owned Resources
• BVCP Policy 2.33 & 2.34 Sensitive Infill & Redevelopment / Design of Newly Developing
Areas
APPENDIX C
86
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
• BVCP Policy 2.36 & 2.37 Physical Design for People & Environmentally Sensitive Urban
Design
• BVCP Policy 2.40 & 2.41 Design Excellence for Public Projects & Enhanced Design for All
Projects
• BVCP Policy 3.28 Drinking Water
• BVCP Policy 3.31 Wastewater
• BVCP Policy 3.32 Protection of Air Quality
• BVCP Policy 8.08 Health & Well Being
• BVCP Policy 8.21, 8.22 & 8.23 Arts & Cultural Facilities, The Arts & Community Culture &
Public Art
Accessible & Equitable Guiding Principle
Industry and Community Resources:
• Federal ADA Standards for Accessible Design
https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm
• The Principles of Inclusive Design by the Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment
https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/the-principles-of-
inclusive-design.pdf
• Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access
• Design for All Foundation
• Institute for Human Centered Design
• National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDILRR)
• National Endowment for the Arts
• BVCP Policy 5.19 Diverse Workforce, Education & Training
• BVCP Policy 6.01-6.06 Complete Transportation System
• BVCP Policy 6.08 Regional Travel Coordination
• BVCP Policy 8.02 Regional Approach to Human Services
• BVCP Policy 8.03 Equitable Distribution of Resources
• BVCP Policy 8.04 Addressing Community Deficiencies
• BVCP Policy 8.05 Diversity
• BVCP Policy 8.06 Mutual Respect
• BVCP Policy 8.10 Community Connectivity & Preparedness
• BVCP Policy 8.13 Support for Community Facilities
• BVCP Policy 8.18 & 8.19 Libraries & Information Resource/Community Center
APPENDIX C
87
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Functional Guiding Principle
Industry and Community Resources
• International Facility Management Association (IFMA)
• Functional Performance Test (or FPT)
• ASHRAE Standards and Guidelines
• 1.01 Regional & Statewide Cooperation
• 1.03 &1.04 Collaboration in Service Delivery & Compliance with Land Use Regulations
• BVCP Policy 1.14 Definition of New Urban Development
• BVCP Policy 1.18 Provision of Urban Services in the Boulder Valley
• BVCP Policy 1.19 Definition of Adequate Urban Facilities & Services
• BVCP Policy 1.20 Phased Extension of Urban Services/ Capital Improvements Plan
• BVCP Policy 1.21 Channeling Development to Areas with Adequate Infrastructure
• BVCP Policy 1.22 Growth to Pay Fair Share of New Facility Costs
• BVCP Policy 1.23Adjacency of Open Space/Utility Impacts
• BVCP Policy 1.24 Multi-Purpose Use of Public Lands
• BVCP Policy 1.25-1.28 Utilities
• BVCP Policy 2.39 Outdoor Lighting/Light Pollution
• BVCP Policy 8.07 Safety
APPENDIX C
88
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Appendix D – Current Building Status
To evaluate the status of existing facilities, the Facilities Master Plan created a scoring system
to rank buildings based on how well each one meets the six guiding principles. The scoring is
intended to be dynamic and has been designed to guide the city with an enhanced decision
development framework as it prioritizes buildings for renovation and helps move them from
needing “Deep Retrofits” or “Targeted Improvements” to a “Maintain Well” status. Developing
strategies based on multiple categories of data enables improved planning and decision making
for stakeholders as we seek to enrich community living through our buildings.
Our approach and methodology to establish a building score involved developing key
performance indicators (KPI), a logic behind how to score each KPI, and a weighting system to
help emphasize the importance of certain traits by department or building type. In total, we
identified nineteen (19) unique KPI’s for the city buildings. Each building was given a score of 1
to 5, where 1 is the worst score and 5 is the best score possible relative to a group of similar
buildings, and those scores were combined within the weighting system to establish a rank by
core value and an overall building score.
Key Performance Indicators
The table below provides definitions for each of the KPI’s identified during the process and by
which the buildings were measured against:
Guiding
Principle
KPI Label KPI Description Definition
Economical KPI 1 Capital Needs per
Square Foot
A relative measure of deferred maintenance and 5-year capital needs
forecasted for a facility
Economical KPI 2 Operating Costs
per Square Foot
A relative measure of the cost to operate and maintain a facility (inc.
minor maintenance, custodial, utilities)
Economical KPI 3 Facility Condition
Index (FCI)
An industry standard risk metric comparing the amount of deferral
relative to the current replacement value of an asset
APPENDIX D
Developing strategies for our existing buildings
89
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Sustainable KPI 4 MEP Deferral
Backlog (%)
The proportion of deferred maintenance backlog which can be
attributed to mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems within a
facility
Sustainable KPI 5 Building Energy
Use Intensity (EUI)
An industry benchmark standard for measuring the relative energy
usage within a facility by gross floor area
Sustainable KPI 6 Carbon Footprint The calculated carbon emissions a facility produces from its energy and
utility usage, measured in metric tons per year
Resilient KPI 7 Flood Vulnerability Assesses a facility’s proximity to the 100-year floodplain. Could the
facility be surrounded by potential flood waters making access into or
out of the facility extremely difficult, if not impossible, during a flood
event?
Resilient KPI 8 Wildfire
Vulnerability
Assesses a facility’s proximity to a fire zone (i.e., West of Broadway)
and the challenges that might be faced by the facility during a wildfire
event.
Resilient KPI 9 Disaster Readiness Is the facility disaster response ready or does it require further study
and investment?
Resilient KPI 10 Community Shelter Has the facility been identified as, and can it serve as, a community
shelter?
Resilient KPI 11 Essential Building Has the facility been identified as an “essential” building?
Accessible &
Equitable
KPI 12 ADA Compliant Assesses whether a building is fully compliant to today’s standards or
somewhat compliant based on previous standards. If non-compliant,
an audit is required to assess whether a facility can be upgraded or
whether it would be cost prohibitive to do so.
Accessible &
Equitable
KPI 13 All inclusive Considers whether a facility “serves all people”? Is it all inclusive and
welcoming?
Accessible &
Equitable
KPI 14 Multi-modal
transport
Can the facility be accessed by multi-modal means? How limited are
the options to arrive at, and access, the facility?
Functional KPI 15 Maintenance and
Operability of
Facility
Assesses whether a facility is easy to operate and maintain. This
measures several criteria including age of facility, redundancy, access
to materials, frequency of failure, and the intrusive nature of the
maintenance to be performed
Functional KPI 16 Facility
Adaptability
Assesses how easily adaptable a facility is from its current form,
considering the costs and functional challenges associated with
adaptive renewal.
Functional KPI 17 Facility Security Considers how secure a facility is in its current state from a physical,
preventative, and technological standpoint.
Experiential KPI 18 Facility Experience
for Community
Assesses whether the facility, in its current state, is a good experience
for the community and its customers to use and experience
Experiential KPI 19 Facility Experience
for Staff
Assesses whether the facility, in its current state, is a good experience
for staff
APPENDIX D
90
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Scoring
With the key performance indicators established, and the scoring requirements determined,
each building was graded against the criteria to establish and overall building score. For
economical and sustainable, the building scores were calculated from data provided in
AssetPlanner®. Whereas KPI’s associated with accessible or experiential, the building scores
were determined based on institutional knowledge or other documentation pertinent to the
criteria. The figure below is a snapshot view for a sample of buildings.
Building Scores
The weighting of the scoring is dynamic and can be adjusted depending on the needs and goals
of the city. The figure above provided a snapshot view for a sample of buildings. For now,
“economical and sustainable” show a higher weighting than “experiential”. Whereas the KPIs
within each core values are evenly split. All weightings are subject to change and iteration to
ensure decisions remain objective and aligned to our most current mission and vision.
Once each KPI is scored, the model calculates an overall building score, a score per guiding
principle, and a letter grade score highlighting where a building fare well or poorly. Any building
can be ranked by overall score or individual guiding principle to help analyze what the correct
strategic action might be based on its current state. The figure below shows a ranked summary
of a sample of buildings by overall score (best to worst). The final figure shows an entire
snapshot of the city’s portfolio by letter grade (best to worst), with Brenton Building scoring the
highest.
33%33%33%33%33%33%20%20%20%20%20%33%33%33%33%33%33%50%50%
6.7%6.7%6.7%6.7%6.7%6.7%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%7.5%7.5%
Asset Name Asset Department KPI 1 KPI 2 KPI 3 KPI 4 KPI 5 KPI 6 KPI 7 KPI 8 KPI 9 KPI 10 KPI 11 KPI 12 KPI 13 KPI 14 KPI 165 KPI 176 KPI 17 KPI 18 KPI 19
Fire Station 8 Emergency Services 5 5 5 4 3 3 5 5 5 1 5 4 4 2 3 1 3 2 4
Child, Youth and Family Services Offices 5 5 3 4 1 3 5 5 1 1 1 3 3 4 3 2 5 3 3
Fire Station 1 Emergency Services 5 5 4 3 1 2 5 5 5 1 5 2 3 4 3 2 3 2 3
Fire Station 2 Emergency Services 2 5 2 4 2 3 5 5 5 1 5 2 2 4 3 2 3 2 2
Fire Station 4 Emergency Services 3 5 3 4 1 3 5 5 5 1 5 2 1 3 3 1 3 2 2
Fleet Services Support Services 4 5 3 2 1 3 3 5 5 1 5 2 3 3 2 1 3 2 2
Iris Center Offices 4 5 3 3 3 3 2 5 1 1 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 3
Park Ops / Forestry Parks & Recreation 3 5 2 3 2 3 5 5 2 1 5 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3
Fire Station 3 Emergency Services 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 5 5 1 5 2 2 4 3 2 3 2 2
MSC A Blg Support Services 3 5 2 2 1 3 3 5 5 1 5 2 3 3 2 2 4 1 2
Fire Training Center Emergency Services 5 4 5 3 1 2 5 5 5 1 5 4 4 2 3 2 3 2 4
Fire Station 7 Emergency Services 5 4 5 5 1 2 2 5 5 1 5 2 4 3 3 2 3 2 3
Fire Station 5 Emergency Services 4 3 3 4 1 2 2 5 5 1 5 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3
Fire Station 6 Emergency Services 3 3 2 3 1 2 5 5 5 1 5 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2
New Britain Offices 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 3 2 2
South Boulder Rec Center Rec Center 2 2 2 2 1 2 5 5 3 3 5 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 4
Park Central Offices 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 3 1 1
Brenton Building Offices 5 1 5 5 4 3 5 5 1 1 3 5 4 5 4 3 5 5 5
East Boulder Community Center Rec Center 4 1 3 2 1 2 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4
Main Library Libraries 4 1 3 2 3 5 1 5 3 3 5 4 4 5 3 4 4 5 2
North Boulder Branch Library Libraries 5 1 5 5 3 3 5 5 1 1 1 4 3 3 4 5 3 5 2
North Boulder Rec Center Rec Center 4 1 4 2 1 2 3 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 3 3 4 4
OSMP Hub Offices 5 1 5 5 2 3 2 5 1 1 1 5 4 4 3 5 4 5 5
Meadows Library Libraries 5 1 5 4 3 3 2 5 1 1 3 4 3 2 4 4 3 3 3
OSMP Office Annex Offices 5 1 5 5 4 4 5 5 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 3
OSMP Shop Support Services 5 1 5 5 3 4 5 5 2 1 5 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 3
Reynolds Library Libraries 5 1 5 4 5 4 5 5 1 1 3 2 3 4 2 2 3 3 2
Age Well West Offices 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 4 4 2 3
Atrium Offices 3 1 3 3 1 3 2 5 1 1 1 2 1 4 4 4 4 1 2
Carnegie Library Libraries 2 1 2 3 2 3 5 5 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 2 4 3
FAM & P&R Bldg Support Services 3 1 3 4 2 4 2 5 3 1 5 2 3 5 2 2 3 1 2
Weighting of Core Value
Weighting within Core Value
Weighted Score by KPI
Tiering Matrix Economical Sustainable Resilient Accessible &
Equitable
15%20%20%15%15%15%
Functional Experiential
Snapshot of a sample of buildings and their KPI scores
APPENDIX D
91
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Strategic Direction
The facility master plan establishes strategic direction to address the city’s building portfolio.
Asset Name Asset Department Weighted Tier Letter Financial Sustainable Resilient Accessible Functional Experiential Financial Sustainable Resilient Accessible Functional Experiential
Brenton Building Offices 80.7%1 A 73%80%45%70%60%75%B A D B C B
OSMP Hub Offices 74.0%1 B 73%67%30%65%60%75%B B E B C B
Fire Station 8 Emergency Services 71.9%1 B 100%67%63%50%35%45%A B C D E D
North Boulder Branch Library Libraries 69.6%1 B 73%73%39%50%60%53%B B E D C D
Main Library Libraries 68.7%1 B 53%67%51%65%55%53%D B D B C D
BMOCA Leased 68.7%1 B 67%87%30%60%40%60%B A E C E C
East Boulder Community Center Rec Center 67.2%1 B 53%33%72%60%50%68%D E B C D B
North Boulder Rec Center Rec Center 66.9%1 B 60%33%66%65%50%60%C E B B D C
Fire Training Center Emergency Services 66.3%1 B 93%40%63%50%40%45%A E C D E D
11th & Spruce Parking 66.1%1 B 53%93%39%60%40%45%D A E C E D
Child, Youth and Family Services Offices 64.8%2 C 87%53%39%50%50%45%A D E D D D
Fire Station 7 Emergency Services 64.6%2 C 93%53%54%45%40%38%A D D D E E
Reynolds Library Libraries 64.5%2 C 73%87%45%45%35%38%B A D D E E
OSMP Shop Support Services 64.5%2 C 73%80%54%30%40%45%B A D E E D
Meadows Library Libraries 64.2%2 C 73%67%36%45%55%45%B B E D C D
Fire Station 1 Emergency Services 63.8%2 C 93%40%63%45%40%38%A E C D E E
OSMP Office Annex Offices 62.8%2 C 73%87%39%30%40%45%B A E E E D
Valmont Park Parks & Recreation 61.8%2 C 67%73%39%35%35%60%B B E E E C
Iris Center Offices 61.7%2 C 80%60%36%45%50%38%A C E D D E
Boulder Reservoir Visitor Center Parks & Recreation 61.7%2 C 13%60%45%55%60%75%E C D C C B
10th & Walnut Parking 61.1%2 C 53%80%27%60%40%45%D A E C E D
Scott Carpernter Bathhouse Parks & Recreation 60.3%2 C 27%60%30%65%45%75%E C E B D B
Broadway Parking Strucutre Parking 60.1%2 C 47%80%39%55%35%45%D A E C E D
1500 Pearl Parking 59.0%2 C 47%73%30%60%40%45%D B E C E D
Fire Station 2 Emergency Services 58.6%2 C 60%60%63%40%40%30%C C C E E E
Randolf Center Parking Parking 58.3%2 C 47%80%30%60%30%45%D A E C E D
RTD Parking Structure Parking 58.3%2 C 47%80%30%60%30%45%D A E C E D
Park Ops / Forestry Parks & Recreation 57.8%2 C 67%53%54%35%35%45%B D D E E D
Fire Station 5 Emergency Services 57.0%2 C 67%47%54%40%40%38%B D D E E E
Fire Station 4 Emergency Services 56.9%2 C 73%53%63%30%35%30%B D C E E E
Stazio Ballfields Buildings Parks & Recreation 56.8%2 C 67%53%39%35%30%60%B D E E E C
OSMP - Cherryvale South Offices 55.6%2 C 67%73%48%30%30%30%B B D E E E
Fleet Services Support Services 55.4%2 C 80%40%57%40%30%30%A E C E E E
Pleasant View Restrooms Parks & Recreation 55.1%2 C 53%73%39%35%30%45%D B E E E D
Scott Carpenter Athletic Center Parks & Recreation 55.0%2 C 33%67%30%65%35%45%E B E B E D
Chautauqua Dining Hall Leased 55.0%2 C 60%40%30%50%35%60%C E E D E C
Pearl St Mall Public Restrooms Parks & Recreation 54.5%2 D 60%73%39%50%20%30%C B E D E E
OSMP - Cherryvale North Offices 54.3%2 D 73%60%48%30%30%30%B C D E E E
SummarySummaryTiering Matrix Scoring
Snapshot of a sample of buildings ranked by overall score (best to worst)
APPENDIX D
92
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Asset Name Asset Department Letter Financial Sustainable Resilient Accessible Functional Experiential
Brenton Building Offices A B A D B C B
11th & Spruce Parking B D A E C E D
BMOCA Leased B B A E C E C
East Boulder Community Center Rec Center B D E B C D B
Fire Station 8 Emergency Services B A B C D E D
Fire Training Center Emergency Services B A E C D E D
Main Library Libraries B D B D B C D
North Boulder Branch Library Libraries B B B E D C D
North Boulder Rec Center Rec Center B C E B B D C
OSMP Hub Offices B B B E B C B
10th & Walnut Parking C D A E C E D
1500 Pearl Parking C D B E C E D
Boulder Reservoir Visitor Center Parks & Recreation C E C D C C B
Broadway Parking Strucutre Parking C D A E C E D
Chautauqua Dining Hall Leased C C E E D E C
Child, Youth and Family Services Offices C A D E D D D
Fire Station 1 Emergency Services C A E C D E E
Fire Station 2 Emergency Services C C C C E E E
Fire Station 4 Emergency Services C B D C E E E
Fire Station 5 Emergency Services C B D D E E E
Fire Station 7 Emergency Services C A D D D E E
Fleet Services Support Services C A E C E E E
Iris Center Offices C A C E D D E
Meadows Library Libraries C B B E D C D
OSMP - Cherryvale South Offices C B B D E E E
OSMP Office Annex Offices C B A E E E D
OSMP Shop Support Services C B A D E E D
Park Ops / Forestry Parks & Recreation C B D D E E D
Pleasant View Restrooms Parks & Recreation C D B E E E D
Randolf Center Parking Parking C D A E C E D
Reynolds Library Libraries C B A D D E E
RTD Parking Structure Parking C D A E C E D
Scott Carpenter Athletic Center Parks & Recreation C E B E B E D
Scott Carpernter Bathhouse Parks & Recreation C E C E B D B
Stazio Ballfields Buildings Parks & Recreation C B D E E E C
Valmont Park Parks & Recreation C B B E E E C
63rd St WTP Water Treatment D E E C E E D
75th WTPP Water Treatment D D E C E E D
Age Well West Offices D E E E D D E
Atrium Offices D D D E E C E
Carnegie Library Libraries D E D E E E D
CV 1500 Pearl Offices D B D E D E E
Dairy Center Leased D D E E C E D
FAM & P&R Bldg Support Services D D B D D E E
Fire Station 3 Emergency Services D D D D E E E
Fire Station 6 Emergency Services D D E C E E E
Harbeck - Bergheim House Leased D B B E E E E
Mapleton Ballfields Building Parks & Recreation D E B E E E E
MSC A Blg Support Services D B E C E E E
Municipal Building Offices D E D D D E E
OSMP - Cherryvale North Offices D B C D E E E
Pearl St Mall Public Restrooms Parks & Recreation D C B E D E E
Pearl Street Mall Visitors Kiosk Parks & Recreation D D B E D E E
Pottery Lab Leased D E C E E E E
Radio Tower Equipment Shelters Support Services D E B C E E D
Resource Center (6400 Arapahoe)Leased D D C E E E D
South Boulder Rec Center Rec Center D E E C E E D
Spruce Pool Bathhouse Parks & Recreation D D D E E E D
Tea House Leased D E B E D E D
The Edge (1301 Arapahoe)Offices D D C E E E E
Betasso WTP Water Treatment E E E D E E E
Boulder Reservoir Boat House Parks & Recreation E E B E E E E
Boulder Reservoir Maintenance Parks & Recreation E E B E E E E
Center Green Offices E E E E E E E
Fire Truck Storage Bldg Support Services E E B D E E E
Flatiron Golf Pro Shop Support Services E E C E E E E
Foothills Maintenace Shop Support Services E E E D E E E
Justice Center Offices E E E E C E D
MSC B Blg Support Services E E E D E E E
Mustards Last Stand Leased E E E E D E E
New Britain Offices E D E E E E E
Park Central Offices E E E E E E E
Pleasant View Maintenance Shop Parks & Recreation E E E E E E D
Public Safety Center Emergency Services E E E D E D E
Roadway Building Support Services E E E E E E E
Salberg Parks & Recreation E E B E E E E
Tantra Park Maintenace Shop Support Services E E E D E E E
Tom Watson Parks & Recreation E E B E E E E
Valmont Butte Support Services E E E E E E E
Scoring -
All Core
Values
Summary - Letter GradesTiering Matrix
Snapshot of the city’s portfolio by letter grade (best to worst)
APPENDIX D
93
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Appendix E – Modeling Assumptions for
Consolidation
This portion of appendix E provides details on the key assumptions used to model the fiscal
impacts of the strategies considered as a part of the facilities master planning process. In
general, the team attempted to make conservative assumptions related to potential savings
related to the proposed strategies of consolidation. As has been shown over the past few years,
the escalation of construction costs frequently outpaces general inflation and incorporating this
in the financial models would suggest even greater savings from consolidation, especially
scenarios where the construction timeline shifts towards the earlier part of implementation.
Many of the analyses used current year dollars for comparison as the relative discrepancies
between Consumer Price Index-based inflation, escalation of construction costs, and the cost of
financing can result in substantial changes in the present value of a given strategy. As a part of
implementation, it is important for the city to consider inflation, escalation, and financing costs.
During implementation it will be substantially easier to estimate these parameters given a
much more concrete timeline for facility construction, financing, and operation. Below we
provide additional detail about key assumptions used to develop the fiscal models for the
master plan.
Financial Model Assumptions for 22 Building Consolidation
• Center Green (already vacated but included for wholesome analysis)
• Main Library (pro-rated to reflect portion impacted by strategy)
List of Buildings included for
Consolidation
Asset Campus Use Size (SF) CRV ($)
Atrium West Campus Office 12,952 5,802,977$
Brenton Building West Campus Office 21,600 9,488,104$
Center Green West Campus Office 31,942 13,654,566$
Children, Youth, & Family Services West Campus Office 5,215 2,465,608$
Community Vitality (1500 Pearl)East Campus Office 5,500 2,861,277$
FAM & P&R Bldg West Campus Office 5,460 2,955,199$
Fleet Services Center East Campus Service 24,854 10,803,631$
Iris Center West Campus Office 14,959 7,226,804$
Justice Center West Campus Office 9,779 6,262,108$
Main Library (Facilities Portion)East Campus Office 3,584 1,938,655$
Municipal Building East Campus Office 60,149 9,947,509$
MSC "A" Building West Campus Office 22,728 12,348,640$
New Britain West Campus Office 13,310 5,923,303$
OSMP Cherryvale East Campus Office 5,440 3,803,018$
OSMP Hub East Campus Office 30,000 13,191,819$
OSMP Offices Annex (Red Deer Dr)East Campus Office 10,110 4,707,037$
Park Central West Campus Office 18,889 8,259,726$
Park Operations / Forestry East Campus Service 10,073 5,830,856$
Public Safety Center East Campus Police 88,986 53,852,413$
The Edge West Campus Office 1,886 898,082$
The OSMP Shop (Ute)East Campus Service 8,022 4,367,131$
West Age Well Center West Campus Office 15,751 9,374,404$
APPENDIX E
94
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Description Units Consolidation
1. Space Optimization - Current Before
Size of Buildings SF 421,189
Number of FTEs Qty.938
Space per FTE SF / FTE 449
1. Space Optimization - Future After
Target Space Req. per Employee SF / FTE 375
Additional Space Requirements SF / FTE -
Future Number of FTEs Qty.938
Estimated Future Space Requirements SF 351,750
1. Space Optimization - Savings
Reduction in Space Requirements SF 69,439
Reduction in Space Requirements % SF 16.5%
Description Units Consolidation
2a. Energy - Current
Annual Utility Consumption mmBtu/Year 33,763
Energy Use Intensity (EUI)kBtu/SF 80.2
Annual Utility Costs $/Year 579,119.1$
Energy Cost Intensity (ECI)$/SF 1.37$
2a. Energy & Carbon - Future
Target Energy Use Intensity (EUI)kBtu/SF 35.0
Future Utility Consumption mmBtu/Year 12,311
Future Rate for Electricity $/kWh 0.10$
Future Utility Costs $/Year 360,822.1$
Est. Energy Cost Intensity (ECI)$/SF 1.03$
2a. Energy & Carbon Reduction - Savings
Annual Utility Consumption Reduction mmBtu/Year 21,452
%63.5%
Annual Utility Cost Savings $/Year 218,297.0$
%37.7%
Description Units Consolidation
2b. Carbon - Current (using 2019)
Annual Carbon Emissions mt CO2 / Year 3,127
Est. Social Cost of Carbon $ / mt CO2 40.00$
Annual Carbon Costs $/Year 125,060$
2b. Carbon - Future
Est. Renewable Supply % Renewables 0%
Est. Emissions Factor from Grid mt CO2/ MWh 0.514
Est. Future Carbon Emissions mt CO2 / Year 1,855
Est. Social Cost of Carbon (Future)$ / mt CO2 40.00$
Annual Carbon Costs (Future)$/Year 74,185$
2b. Energy & Carbon Reduction - Savings
Annual Carbon Emissions Reduction mt CO2 / Year 1,272
%40.7%
Annual Carbon Cost Savings $/Year 50,875$
%40.7%
Space Requirements
Energy Requirements
Carbon Requirements
APPENDIX E
95
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Description Units Consolidation
3a. Financial (OpEx) - Current
Annual O&M Costs $/Year -$
Annual Custodial Costs $/Year -$
Annual Utility costs $/Year -$
2019 Combined OpEx Costs $/Year 4,480,506$
2019 OpEx Cost per SF ($/SF)$/SF 10.64$
3a. Financial (OpEx) - Future
Target O&M Costs per SF $/SF 5.33$
Adjusted O&M Costs per SF (excl. utility)$/SF 4.30$
Est. O&M Costs $/Year 1,514,005
3a. Financial (OpEx) - Savings
2025 - West Campus OpEx Savings $/Year 2,966,500$
2025 - West Campus Carbon Savings %66.2%
Inputs All
Average Age 49
Est. Const' Yr 1972
Size (SF) of 22 Buildings 421,189
Size (SF) of West Buildings 174,471
Size (SF) of East Buildings 246,718
CRV ($M) of 22 Buildings 2021 195.96$
CRV ($M) of West Buildings 2021 111.30$
CRV ($M) of East Buildings 2021 84.66$
FY19 - O&M 7.30
FY19 - Custodial 1.88
FY19 - Utilities 1.14
Inputs All
Size once Consolidated (Total SF)351,750
Size once Consolidated (West SF)126,730
Size once Consolidated (East SF)224,460
New CRV + Soft Costs (Total)310.40$
New CRV + Soft Costs (West)56.50$
New CRV + Soft Costs (East)253.90$
Future O&M Costs per SF 2.08$
Future Custodial per SF 1.90$
Future Utilities per SF 1.36$
Variables West
Inflation Factor 3.75%
Capital Renewal (2% CRV)2.0%
Soft Cost Factor 25.0%
O&M Degredation Factor (Yr1-30)0.50%
O&M Degredation Factor (Yr 30-50)1.00%
O&M Degredation Factor (Yr 50+)2.00%
Annual Discount Rate 4.0%
Financials
Assumptions/Drivers
APPENDIX E
96
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
*All numbers in millions of current (2021) year dollars, assuming 3.75% Annual Inflation
Year Construction Renewal
Minor
Maintenance Custodial Utilities Total
Total
Cumulative Year Construction Renewal
Minor
Maintenance Custodial Utilities Total
Total
Cumulative
2021 0 4.6 4.0 1.0 0.6 10.2 10.2 2021 0 4.6 4.0 1.0 0.6 10.2 10.2
2022 0 4.7 4.2 1.1 0.7 10.7 20.9 2022 0 4.7 4.2 1.1 0.7 10.7 20.9
2023 0 4.9 4.5 1.1 0.7 11.2 32.2 2023 0 4.9 4.5 1.1 0.7 11.2 32.2
2024 0 5.1 4.7 1.2 0.7 11.8 44.0 2024 0 5.1 4.7 1.2 0.7 11.8 44.0
2025 0 5.3 5.0 1.3 0.8 12.4 56.3 2025 56.5 3.0 2.6 0.9 0.6 63.5 107.5
2026 0 5.5 5.3 1.4 0.8 13.0 69.3 2026 0 3.1 2.7 0.9 0.6 7.3 114.7
2027 0 5.7 5.6 1.4 0.9 13.6 82.9 2027 0 3.2 2.8 1.0 0.6 7.6 122.3
2028 0 5.9 5.9 1.5 0.9 14.3 97.2 2028 0 3.3 2.9 1.0 0.6 7.9 130.1
2029 0 6.1 6.3 1.6 1.0 15.0 112.2 2029 253.9 6.2 1.1 1.0 0.7 262.8 393.0
2030 0 6.4 6.6 1.7 1.0 15.7 127.9 2030 0 6.4 1.1 1.0 0.7 9.3 402.2
2031 0 6.6 7.0 1.8 1.1 16.5 144.4 2031 0 6.7 1.1 1.0 0.8 9.6 411.9
2032 0 6.9 7.4 1.9 1.2 17.3 161.7 2032 0 6.9 1.2 1.1 0.8 10.0 421.9
2033 0 7.1 7.8 2.0 1.2 18.2 179.8 2033 0 7.2 1.2 1.1 0.8 10.4 432.3
2034 0 7.4 8.3 2.1 1.3 19.1 198.9 2034 0 7.5 1.3 1.2 0.9 10.8 443.1
2035 0 7.7 8.7 2.2 1.4 20.0 218.9 2035 0 7.7 1.4 1.2 0.9 11.2 454.3
2036 0 7.9 9.2 2.4 1.4 21.0 239.9 2036 0 8.0 1.4 1.3 0.9 11.7 466.0
2037 0 8.2 9.8 2.5 1.5 22.1 262.0 2037 0 8.3 1.5 1.3 1.0 12.1 478.1
2038 0 8.5 10.3 2.7 1.6 23.2 285.1 2038 0 8.6 1.5 1.4 1.0 12.6 490.7
2039 0 8.9 10.9 2.8 1.7 24.3 309.5 2039 0 9.0 1.6 1.5 1.0 13.1 503.8
2040 0 9.2 11.6 3.0 1.8 25.5 335.0 2040 0 9.3 1.7 1.5 1.1 13.6 517.4
2041 0 9.5 12.2 3.1 1.9 26.8 361.8 2041 0 9.7 1.7 1.6 1.1 14.1 531.5
2042 0 9.9 12.9 3.3 2.0 28.2 390.0 2042 0 10.0 1.8 1.7 1.2 14.7 546.2
2043 0 10.3 13.7 3.5 2.1 29.6 419.6 2043 0 10.4 1.9 1.7 1.2 15.3 561.4
2044 0 10.7 14.5 3.7 2.3 31.1 450.7 2044 0 10.8 2.0 1.8 1.3 15.9 577.3
2045 0 11.1 15.3 3.9 2.4 32.7 483.4 2045 0 11.2 2.1 1.9 1.3 16.5 593.7
2046 0 11.5 16.2 4.2 2.5 34.3 517.7 2046 0 11.6 2.1 2.0 1.4 17.1 610.9
2047 0 11.9 17.1 4.4 2.7 36.1 553.8 2047 0 12.0 2.2 2.0 1.5 17.8 628.6
2048 0 12.4 18.1 4.7 2.8 37.9 591.7 2048 0 12.5 2.3 2.1 1.5 18.5 647.1
2049 0 12.8 19.1 4.9 3.0 39.8 631.6 2049 0 13.0 2.4 2.2 1.6 19.2 666.3
2050 0 13.3 20.2 5.2 3.2 41.9 673.5 2050 0 13.4 2.5 2.3 1.7 20.0 686.3
2051 0 13.8 21.4 5.5 3.3 44.0 717.5 2051 0 14.0 2.6 2.4 1.7 20.7 707.0
2052 0 14.3 22.6 5.8 3.5 46.3 763.8 2052 0 14.5 2.8 2.5 1.8 21.5 728.6
2053 0 14.9 23.9 6.2 3.7 48.7 812.4 2053 0 15.0 2.9 2.6 1.9 22.4 751.0
2054 0 15.4 25.3 6.5 3.9 51.2 863.6 2054 0 15.6 3.0 2.7 2.0 23.3 774.2
2055 0 16.0 26.8 6.9 4.2 53.8 917.4 2055 0 16.2 3.1 2.9 2.0 24.2 798.4
2056 0 16.6 28.3 7.3 4.4 56.6 974.0 2056 0 16.8 3.3 3.0 2.1 25.2 823.6
2057 0 17.2 29.9 7.7 4.7 59.5 1033.4 2057 0 17.4 3.4 3.1 2.2 26.2 849.9
2058 0 17.9 31.6 8.1 4.9 62.6 1096.0 2058 0 18.1 3.6 3.3 2.4 27.3 877.2
2059 0 18.5 33.5 8.6 5.2 65.8 1161.8 2059 0 18.7 3.8 3.4 2.5 28.4 905.6
2060 0 19.2 35.4 9.1 5.5 69.2 1231.0 2060 0 19.4 4.0 3.6 2.6 29.6 935.2
2061 0 19.9 37.4 9.6 5.8 72.8 1303.8 2061 0 20.2 4.1 3.8 2.7 30.8 966.0
2062 0 20.7 39.6 10.2 6.2 76.6 1380.4 2062 0 20.9 4.3 4.0 2.8 32.1 998.0
2063 0 21.5 41.8 10.8 6.5 80.6 1461.0 2063 0 21.7 4.5 4.2 3.0 33.4 1031.4
2064 0 22.3 44.2 11.4 6.9 84.8 1545.8 2064 0 22.5 4.8 4.3 3.1 34.7 1066.2
2065 0 23.1 46.8 12.0 7.3 89.2 1635.0 2065 0 23.4 5.0 4.6 3.3 36.2 1102.3
2066 0 24.0 49.5 12.7 7.7 93.9 1728.9 2066 0 24.2 5.2 4.8 3.4 37.6 1140.0
2067 0 24.9 52.3 13.5 8.2 98.8 1827.8 2067 0 25.1 5.5 5.0 3.6 39.2 1179.2
2068 0 25.8 55.3 14.2 8.6 104.0 1931.7 2068 0 26.1 5.7 5.2 3.7 40.8 1220.0
2069 0 26.8 58.5 15.0 9.1 109.5 2041.2 2069 0 27.1 6.0 5.5 3.9 42.5 1262.4
2070 0 27.8 61.9 15.9 9.7 115.2 2156.4 2070 0 28.1 6.3 5.7 4.1 44.2 1306.7
2071 0 28.8 65.4 16.8 10.2 121.3 2277.7 2071 0 29.1 6.6 6.0 4.3 46.0 1352.7
2072 0 29.9 69.2 17.8 10.8 127.7 2405.4 2072 0 30.2 6.9 6.3 4.5 47.9 1400.7
2073 0 31.0 73.2 18.8 11.4 134.4 2539.8 2073 0 31.4 7.2 6.6 4.7 49.9 1450.6
2074 0 32.2 77.4 19.9 12.1 141.5 2681.4 2074 0 32.5 7.6 6.9 5.0 52.0 1502.6
2075 0 33.4 81.8 21.0 12.8 149.0 2830.4 2075 0 33.8 8.0 7.3 5.2 54.3 1556.9
2076 0 34.6 86.5 22.3 13.5 156.9 2987.4 2076 0 35.0 8.5 7.7 5.5 56.8 1613.6
2077 0 35.9 91.5 23.5 14.3 165.3 3152.6 2077 0 36.3 9.0 8.2 5.9 59.3 1673.0
2078 0 37.3 96.8 24.9 15.1 174.1 3326.7 2078 0 37.7 9.5 8.6 6.2 62.0 1735.0
2079 0 38.7 102.3 26.3 16.0 183.3 3510.0 2079 0 39.1 10.0 9.1 6.5 64.8 1799.8
2080 0 40.1 108.2 27.8 16.9 193.1 3703.1 2080 0 40.6 10.6 9.7 6.9 67.8 1867.6
2 Campus ConsolidationStatus Quo
Model 1: Nominal Cash Flow
APPENDIX E
97
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
*All numbers in millions of current (2021) year dollars, assuming 3.75% Annual Inflation and 4% discount rate
Year Construction Renewal
Minor
Maintenance Custodial Utilities Total
Total
Cumulative Year Construction Renewal
Minor
Maintenance Custodial Utilities Total
Total
Cumulative
2021 0.0 4.6 4.0 1.0 0.6 10.2 10.2 2021 0.0 4.6 4.0 1.0 0.6 10.2 10.2
2022 0.0 4.6 4.1 1.0 0.6 10.3 20.5 2022 0.0 4.6 4.1 1.0 0.6 10.3 20.5
2023 0.0 4.6 4.1 1.1 0.6 10.4 30.9 2023 0.0 4.6 4.1 1.1 0.6 10.4 30.9
2024 0.0 4.5 4.2 1.1 0.7 10.5 41.4 2024 0.0 4.5 4.2 1.1 0.7 10.5 41.4
2025 0.0 4.5 4.3 1.1 0.7 10.6 52.0 2025 48.3 2.5 2.2 0.8 0.5 54.3 95.7
2026 0.0 4.5 4.3 1.1 0.7 10.7 62.6 2026 0.0 2.5 2.2 0.8 0.5 6.0 101.6
2027 0.0 4.5 4.4 1.1 0.7 10.8 73.4 2027 0.0 2.5 2.2 0.8 0.5 6.0 107.6
2028 0.0 4.5 4.5 1.2 0.7 10.8 84.2 2028 0.0 2.5 2.2 0.8 0.5 6.0 113.6
2029 0.0 4.5 4.6 1.2 0.7 10.9 95.2 2029 185.5 4.5 0.8 0.7 0.5 192.0 305.6
2030 0.0 4.5 4.6 1.2 0.7 11.0 106.2 2030 0.0 4.5 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.5 312.1
2031 0.0 4.5 4.7 1.2 0.7 11.1 117.3 2031 0.0 4.5 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.5 318.6
2032 0.0 4.5 4.8 1.2 0.7 11.2 128.6 2032 0.0 4.5 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.5 325.1
2033 0.0 4.4 4.9 1.3 0.8 11.3 139.9 2033 0.0 4.5 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.5 331.6
2034 0.0 4.4 5.0 1.3 0.8 11.5 151.4 2034 0.0 4.5 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.5 338.1
2035 0.0 4.4 5.0 1.3 0.8 11.6 162.9 2035 0.0 4.5 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.5 344.6
2036 0.0 4.4 5.1 1.3 0.8 11.7 174.6 2036 0.0 4.5 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.5 351.1
2037 0.0 4.4 5.2 1.3 0.8 11.8 186.4 2037 0.0 4.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.5 357.6
2038 0.0 4.4 5.3 1.4 0.8 11.9 198.3 2038 0.0 4.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.5 364.0
2039 0.0 4.4 5.4 1.4 0.8 12.0 210.3 2039 0.0 4.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.5 370.5
2040 0.0 4.4 5.5 1.4 0.9 12.1 222.4 2040 0.0 4.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.5 376.9
2041 0.0 4.4 5.6 1.4 0.9 12.2 234.7 2041 0.0 4.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 383.4
2042 0.0 4.3 5.7 1.5 0.9 12.4 247.0 2042 0.0 4.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 389.8
2043 0.0 4.3 5.8 1.5 0.9 12.5 259.5 2043 0.0 4.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 396.3
2044 0.0 4.3 5.9 1.5 0.9 12.6 272.1 2044 0.0 4.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 402.7
2045 0.0 4.3 6.0 1.5 0.9 12.7 284.9 2045 0.0 4.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 409.1
2046 0.0 4.3 6.1 1.6 0.9 12.9 297.8 2046 0.0 4.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 415.5
2047 0.0 4.3 6.2 1.6 1.0 13.0 310.8 2047 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 422.0
2048 0.0 4.3 6.3 1.6 1.0 13.2 323.9 2048 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 428.4
2049 0.0 4.3 6.4 1.6 1.0 13.3 337.2 2049 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 434.8
2050 0.0 4.3 6.5 1.7 1.0 13.4 350.6 2050 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 441.2
2051 0.0 4.3 6.6 1.7 1.0 13.6 364.2 2051 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 447.6
2052 0.0 4.2 6.7 1.7 1.0 13.7 377.9 2052 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 454.0
2053 0.0 4.2 6.8 1.8 1.1 13.9 391.8 2053 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 460.3
2054 0.0 4.2 6.9 1.8 1.1 14.0 405.8 2054 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 6.4 466.7
2055 0.0 4.2 7.1 1.8 1.1 14.2 420.0 2055 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.4 473.1
2056 0.0 4.2 7.2 1.8 1.1 14.3 434.3 2056 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.4 479.5
2057 0.0 4.2 7.3 1.9 1.1 14.5 448.8 2057 0.0 4.2 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.4 485.9
2058 0.0 4.2 7.4 1.9 1.2 14.7 463.5 2058 0.0 4.2 0.8 0.8 0.6 6.4 492.3
2059 0.0 4.2 7.5 1.9 1.2 14.8 478.3 2059 0.0 4.2 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.4 498.7
2060 0.0 4.2 7.7 2.0 1.2 15.0 493.3 2060 0.0 4.2 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.4 505.1
2061 0.0 4.2 7.8 2.0 1.2 15.2 508.5 2061 0.0 4.2 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.4 511.5
2062 0.0 4.1 7.9 2.0 1.2 15.3 523.8 2062 0.0 4.2 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.4 517.9
2063 0.0 4.1 8.1 2.1 1.3 15.5 539.3 2063 0.0 4.2 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.4 524.3
2064 0.0 4.1 8.2 2.1 1.3 15.7 555.0 2064 0.0 4.2 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.4 530.8
2065 0.0 4.1 8.3 2.1 1.3 15.9 570.9 2065 0.0 4.2 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.4 537.2
2066 0.0 4.1 8.5 2.2 1.3 16.1 587.0 2066 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.4 543.7
2067 0.0 4.1 8.6 2.2 1.3 16.3 603.3 2067 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.5 550.1
2068 0.0 4.1 8.8 2.3 1.4 16.5 619.7 2068 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.5 556.6
2069 0.0 4.1 8.9 2.3 1.4 16.7 636.4 2069 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.5 563.0
2070 0.0 4.1 9.1 2.3 1.4 16.9 653.3 2070 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.5 569.5
2071 0.0 4.1 9.2 2.4 1.4 17.1 670.3 2071 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.5 576.0
2072 0.0 4.0 9.4 2.4 1.5 17.3 687.6 2072 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.9 0.6 6.5 582.5
2073 0.0 4.0 9.5 2.4 1.5 17.5 705.1 2073 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.9 0.6 6.5 589.0
2074 0.0 4.0 9.7 2.5 1.5 17.7 722.8 2074 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.9 0.6 6.5 595.5
2075 0.0 4.0 9.8 2.5 1.5 17.9 740.7 2075 0.0 4.1 1.0 0.9 0.6 6.5 602.0
2076 0.0 4.0 10.0 2.6 1.6 18.2 758.9 2076 0.0 4.1 1.0 0.9 0.6 6.6 608.6
2077 0.0 4.0 10.2 2.6 1.6 18.4 777.2 2077 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 6.6 615.2
2078 0.0 4.0 10.3 2.7 1.6 18.6 795.9 2078 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 6.6 621.8
2079 0.0 4.0 10.5 2.7 1.6 18.8 814.7 2079 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 6.7 628.5
2080 0.0 4.0 10.7 2.8 1.7 19.1 833.8 2080 0.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 6.7 635.2
2 Campus ConsolidationStatus Quo
Model 2: Discounted Cash Flow
APPENDIX E
98
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Appendix F – Energy Case Studies
In 2018 the city conducted a holistic energy assessment on three buildings; the Municipal
Building located at 1777 Broadway, The Municipal Service Center – Building A located at 5050
Peal Street, and the East Boulder Community Center located at 5660 Sioux Drive. The purpose
of the work was to assess necessary improvements on existing buildings, cost, and
implementation factors to meet the city’s climate commitment goals. The three buildings
selected represented differing building types in the city’s holding: an office building, a
recreation center with pools, and a service building. All three buildings are in current need of a
mechanical asset or system replacements and the study evaluated like-for-like replacement in
contrast to what is needed to bring the building more closely in line with meeting energy
reduction goals.
These studies heavily informed the degree of renovation required in buildings to meet the city’s
climate goals and the challenge to make such improvements. They have informed much of the
additional analysis performed as part of this master plan process and laid a foundation for
proposed frameworks, processes, and recommendations.
The energy case studies can be found here on the city’s website.
APPENDIX F
99
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Appendix G – Medical Office Pavilion
Reuse Analysis
In 2017-18 the city conducted a Reuse Analysis of the Medical Office Pavilion located at 1155
Alpine Ave on the Alpine-Balsam site. The purpose of the study was to establish a basis for
evaluating design, engineering and code requirements associated with reusing the existing
Medical Office Pavilion as future city offices and a service center. The baseline assumptions
were subsequently used to develop a construction cost estimate to understand the relative
costs of renovation the pavilion compare dot eh costs of a similar replacement building.
Knowing costs are never isolated from other value proposition. This study endeavored to
evaluate other tangible, and some intangible factors as they might influence reuse potential.
The analysis was rigorous and incorporated recent learning experiences from renovation of the
Brenton Building directly across the street and south on what is required to meet the city’s
energy codes and climate commitment. What was learned from this Reuse Analysis provided
direction for work in this master plan and foundation for recommendations in the Key
Initiatives and Strategic Actions. This reuse analysis directly informed how we conduct future
building assessments that has been summarized on page 50 as part of the Decision-Making
Framework.
The Reuse Analysis can be found here on the city’s website.
APPENDIX G
100
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Appendix H – Municipal Service Center
Max Capacity Analysis
In 2018 the city conducted a Maximum Capacity Analysis of the Municipal Service Center site to
understand the full build-out potential the site held for future consideration of consolidation of
additional services to this area. The analysis included evaluation of the existing conditions – site
and area circulation, access, infrastructure, utilities, programs and services in current operation
and assessment of their future needs. Land use regulations, parking requirements, maximum
buildable areas were assessed to develop a conceptual plan that could be submitted to
Planning and Development Services (P&DS) as part of a Pre-Application Review of a proposed
future development. The purpose of submitting the Pre-Application was to obtain formal
regulatory evaluation and response to many questions regarding the site’s future development
potential. This appendix provides documents that were included in the pre-application
submission along with P&DS’s review comments.
This Analysis has been instrumental in advancing recommendations to pursue a more
comprehensive consolidation of services at the MSC site as an Eastern City Campus. This work
provided the foundation for understanding the value of the current city holding in achieving the
goals articulated in the Consolidate Services Key Initiative.
The MSC Max Capacity Analysis can be found here on the city’s website.
APPENDIX H
101
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Appendix I – Detailed Descriptions of
Financing Mechanisms
Bonds – One of the more traditional methods to fund large capital projects is through the issuance
of a bond. The bond works as a loan, which provides capital upfront, and the principal and interest –
together referred to as the debt service – is paid back to investors over the term of the bond,
typically between 15 and 30 years. Bonds are backed solely by the credit and taxing power of the
city and essentially acts as a pledge to use all legally available avenues, including tax revenues, to
repay bond holders. Boulder’s strong bond rating allows the city to borrow money at favorable
interest rates, which makes this one of the least expensive financing options. The debt service could
be partially offset by anticipated operational savings that consolidation would bring. Issuing a bond
requires voter approval.
Certificates of Participation (COPs) – A popular alternative to municipal bons are Certificates of
Participation, or COPs. In this arrangement, investors purchase lease-shares of a capital project,
which entitle them to future lease revenues paid by the city. Because the new piece of
infrastructure is technically owned by an independent authority, the city is not bound by
restrictions on the amount of debt that it can incur and thus can be issued quicker and without
voter approval. Similar to a bond, annual payments could be offset by operational savings realized
by consolidation.
Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) – A business model which helps customers leverage
energy savings to generate capital to renew facilities and building systems. An ESPC is budget-
neutral in that it uses money already being spent on monthly utility bills to finance energy
infrastructure and facility improvements. During the contract term, improvements in energy
infrastructure yield positive energy savings through efficiency to pay for the work and debt service.
Once the contract is complete, the customer will receive the full benefit of the energy-efficiency
savings, providing capital for further facility improvements.
Energy as a Service / Infrastructure as a Service (EaaS/IaaS) – A business model whereby
customers pay for an energy service without having to make any upfront capital investment. EaaS
models usually take the form of a subscription for energy equipment owned by a service company
or management of energy usage to deliver the desired energy service. The business model typically
promotes the transition to, and deployment of, advanced low-carbon technology while removing
barriers such as high upfront technological costs, capital constraints, and uncertainty about
performance. Under an EaaS model, a service firm may accept certain defined, ongoing risks (e.g.,
equipment failure, performance, etc.) and obligations (e.g., operations and maintenance, repair and
replacement, etc.) generally associated with ownership of the related assets and are compensated
based on agreed upon performance criteria (e.g., energy savings, electrons delivered, lumens level,
carbon footprint reduction, facility condition index maintained, plant availability, etc.). While not a
strict requirement, the objective is often to structure the EaaS such that the impact of the
agreement is credit neutral/credit positive for the customer and such that the deal receives off
balance sheet treatment.
APPENDIX I
102
E N R I C H I N G O U R L I V E S T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G S
Facilities Master Plan