This  manual,  which supersedes  the  1989 edition  of the  Facilities  Inventory  Guide,  was revised to 1) parallel  the  Postsecondary  Education  Facilities  Inventory  and  Classification Manual,  published  in November  1992 by the  National  Center  for  Education  Statistics;

2) reflect new and revised data elements needed to respond to State and federal reporting requirements;  and  3) update  and clarify data  components related  to  the  operation and maintenance of plant.

A  number   of  Office  of  the  President  (OP)  and  campus   staff  contributed  to  and/or reviewed sections  contained  in this manual.   We thank  the many campus  and  OP staff personnel  who served as members of the committee  and  subcommittees concerning  the CPEC  space and  utilization  standards.    Special acknowledgement  goes to Janet  Clark, Eric Denner,  Robin Draper,  Marjorie Gill, Lane Hignight, Jerry Johnson, Rickie Kinley, Tom  Koster,  Susan  Lascurettes,  Judi  O'Boyle, Fran  Owens, Bob Pizzi, and Bob Rhine, for their invaluable comments,  questions,  and suggestions,  particularly  those which were received during  the  Fall  1991 facilities  update  cycle when  Phase  I I  of CEFA   system modifications  were initially  implemented.    Their  input  provided  the  overall framework by which we approached the revision of the manual.

Sincere appreciation goes to  Mary  Chaitt,  Steve Honda,  June  Little, and  Patty  Mead, who, in addition  to reviewing significant parts of this manual,  suggested specific formats and  tables  for improving  the usefulness of the manual;  challenged  us with unusual  and provocative  questions  and situations;  provided extra pairs of eyes in the proofing of this document;   and  on  several  occasions,   revealed  to  us  the  humorous  and  sometimes irreverent side of the facilities inventory.

Our  thanks  to Carol  Copperud, who worked on the two appendices  dealing with room use codes and  space standards; Carolyn  Mackell, who drafted  the section  on academic program  codes; Carla  Raffetto,  who contributed  to and  reviewed many  of the sections of  the  manual,  as  well as  responded  to  all the  complex  technical  and  systems-related questions;  and  Kathleen  Stock,  who was responsible for the appendix  on operation  and maintenance of plant.   Especial thanks  to Tamie Wright,  who conceived and  produced many of the graphics,  tables, and matrices, and who was given the onerous  assignment of  reading  every  page  of  the  revised  manual   for  content,   clarity,  consistency,   and accuracy.

To  Polly Breitkreuz,  whom  we feel could  never receive enough  acknowledgement, our deepest appreciation and heartfelt  gratitude for the generosity  of her time, expertise, and dedication  to  the  manual.    From  the early drafting  stages,  Polly remained  one  of the steadfast  and primary  contributors to this manual.   We relied heavily on Polly to review the materials  thoroughly  and to offer campus  perspectives and guidance.

We are confident  this manual  will be useful and serve its intended  purpose.

February  1993

Ralph Young

Joanne Cate

Current EFA Contacts

Paul Hanchock

From: Paul Hanchock

Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:20 AM

To: 'Keith Kanda'

Subject: RE: Policy Help

Good morning Keith,

I had a similar impulse toward clarification a few years back, so I went looking for something that would state all our required functions in a couple of paragraphs.  No such luck!  What we work on is a sub-set of larger functions that feed into yet larger functions that link UC to various state and federal functions which in tum have broader implications in policy, legislation, and legal practice.  I can draw some general inferences, but I doubt there's any one source that can explain all the ramifications and requirements of our work.

The crucial point is that when California responded to the federal Morrill Act of 1862 by establishing a State university, it entrusted the institution to the Regents as a corporate trustee for the citizens of California.  This allowed the Regents to acquire title to property and other assets, and in consequence the Regents needed to keep records of the assets they held.  I don't think there's any explicit statement about this.  Every corporation keeps records of its capital assets; to fail in doing so would be irresponsible stewardship.  So the corporate databases serve as the Regents official record of their holdings.  There are several sources for information about the University's charter.  Here's one that's not too dense and legalistic:

http://sL1J1 iteh rkely.edu/11chisJ01}'/genr_al=hist9Jyf oyerviw/tQmJ_J1tml

As a (semi-autonomous) agency of the State of California, we fall under a host of regulations that the State has established for the management of property.  The State merely assumes (without bothering to say so explicitly) that every agency maintains accurate records of its property and can make that information available to the Legislature and its subordinate offices.  Here's one sample (among many!) that holds UC accountable for information from its property inventory:  httpJ/law.justia.com/california/codes/gov/11000-11019.9.html

Section 1011.17 mentions some points that correspond to data elements in the EFA database.

We're also linked to greater enterprises of higher education and research.  Every state and federal agency that provides funding for such work imposes accountability measures to track progress (or the lack of it!), including the availability of physical facilities.  Our reporting requirements have to be compatible with information from comparable institutions, so we adopt data elements from various governmental and professional bodies (NCES, CPEC, DOF, NACUBO, NSF, SCUP, etc.).  There are lots of these, but you'll recognize some familiar terms if you look here: b.t.tp:/!nc;s .G.d.gQYLm1bs2QQ2/2.QQ2J6.=2Pdf and here: ht:tp/ ww_w GPG'.GJLgoy/('QmplGtRGPPI1/l99QRports.L9Q::Q.3.pdf   and here:  http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006160.pdf

So you're absolutely right that the FDX isn't something the Davis campus made up to waste people's time.  The requirements that we maintain and provide this information are systemwide and statewide and nationwide.

The part that interests me, however, isn't the statutory requirements but the opportunities inherent in maintaining  such detailed information.   Chapter  1 of the FIG lists some of the internal functions that UC uses its databases for.   There are quite a few others, including ad hoc responses to various topical  or controversial subjects.   There was once a magazine report that private  universities  have more space per student than public schools.   We got a bunch of inquiries about where UC fits on that spectrum, and fortunately I was able to come up with an answer in about five minutes.   Another time, a Sacramento bureaucrat asserted that UC was over­ built on research  space and had improperly diverted money  from other uses to cater to faculty researchers.   It took only a few hours to establish that he was quoting mistaken data, that State support was not at issue, and that UC' s research facilities were very close to State space guidelines.  You may also remember a few of the snafus I discussed at Alumni House in Berkeley last year.  It seems there's no end to misinformation, and it's an enormous boon to have the resources to refute it.

Just as there's no succinct list of inventory standards and requirements, there's no really official name for the system.  During the university's first century, the records were probably kept in ledger books and filing  cabinets.  In 1972, the first computerized system was instituted and named the Facilities Data System.  By 1976 this had been contracted to FDX.  At first, every campus was required to run the same software on its campus mainframe, but eventually this program became obsolete and campuses grew restive about using clunky software with limited capabilities.  So UCOP eventually relented and allowed every campus to choose its own database program, so long as it could export data consistent with the FDX format.  At that point, we ceased to have a single program, and campuses began using their own local terminology.  Here at UCOP, the information submitted from campus systems was compiled into "corporate databases" for student data, financial data, payroll data, and so forth.  The building and room files were included in the Corporate Equipment, Facilities, and Assets database (CEFA or EFA), and that's the name currently in use.  I have no idea who devised the name, and I suspect that a reorganization of Information Systems may result in new names.  To avoid any confusion of my data with equipment files, capitalized asset values, real estate, and such, I usually refer to it as the Facilities Inventory.

And that's about everything I can dredge up from my recollections just now.  Ifyou have further questions, let me know and I'll see what I can come up with.

Adios

1. 2

From: Keith Kanda [mailto:ktkanda@ucdavi s.edu]

Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 8:17 AM

To: Paul Hanchock

Subject: Policy Help

Hi Paul,

Hope the New Year finds you well! We are updating our campus policy and want to throw some "meat" into the language. Iam updating the Facilities Inventory sections and would like to know a couple of things:

1. Is there an official name for the report we send to OP? I have heard it called the FDX and the Space Inventory Report. But if there is an official name please advise.
2. Do you happen to know the policy which requires us to report the inventory? Iwant to identify that this is not something that we as a campus made up to do, rather - that it is part of a systemwide requirement.

Let me know if you have any questions. If the policy is somewhere online please let me know so that I may reference it. Much thanks!!!

Keith Kanda

Senior Facilities Analyst University of California, Davis

Office of Resource Management and Planning One Shields Avenue, Mrak Hall 376

Davis, CA 95616

Phone: 530.752.2437, Fax: 530.752.5808, [email protected]