Top Owners Sourcebook

30
ENR Top Owners Sourcebook - 2006 This annual issue is a detailed analysis and ranking of the 425 private companies based on their construction spending in the previous year. ENR’s Top Owners Sourcebook advises readers about issues concerning construction programs of top U.S. owners-- privately-owned firms, non-profit institutions and government agencies. The main story, "The Top Owners," is about large owners who are pressing the industry to put developing technology and project delivery advances together in an effort to rethink the way construction programs are conceived, designed and built. Separate tables list the top owners by industry segment. This “Sourcebook” issue of ENR, along with the other ENR survey issues, has a long shelf-live and, therefore, are used as a reference tool throughout the industry.

Transcript of Top Owners Sourcebook

Page 1: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR Top Owners Sourcebook - 2006

This annual issue is a detailed analysis and ranking of the 425 private companies based on their construction spending in the previous year. ENR’s Top Owners Sourcebook advises readers about issues concerning construction programs of top U.S. owners--privately-owned firms, non-profit institutions and government agencies. The main story, "The Top Owners," is about large owners who are pressing the industry to put developing technology and project delivery advances together in an effort to rethink the way construction programs are conceived, designed and built.

Separate tables list the top owners by industry segment. This “Sourcebook” issue of ENR, along with the other ENR survey issues, has a long shelf-live and, therefore, are used as a reference tool throughout the industry.

Page 2: Top Owners Sourcebook

FIL

LUST

RATI

ON

BYN

ANCY

SOUL

LIAR

DFO

REN

R

see a lot of local programs, but no comprehensive approach.Owners are not always getting their preferred contractors sim-ply because the contractors don’t have the capacity to do thework.” He worries that this may force some of the large, multi-national owners to look abroad to locate their projects.

“The basic challenges have not changed,” says Tom Weise,corporate director of facilities, materials and services at IntelCorp. “We are still struggling to make sure that good labor isavailable at the right place at the right time. And that’s a globalproblem, not just here in the U.S.” He argues that this is anissue that must be addressed now. “As the baby boomers retire,there could be catastrophic consequences if we fail,” he says.“Construction prices will go through the roof.”

Many large owners have not experienced critical shortagesof personnel on their projects, but are worried. “Our projectshave not been experiencing major shortages in the trades, butthere are many owners that have,” says Joseph Gionfriddo,global construction manager for Procter & Gamble, and chairof the lean construction committee for Construction UsersRoundtable and member of the globalization committee for theConstruction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas. Neither hasJohnson & Johnson had shortages in the trades, says William P.Tibbitt, J&J’s executive director of worldwide engineering andreal estate. “But we have seen shortages of experienced, com-petent managers on the contractors’ side,” he says.

Many owners are unhappy with the industry’s inability tocome up with a coordinated approach to recruiting people intothe industry. And some say that owners shouldn’t have to solvethe industry’s problems. “Coming to owners for leadership onfinding the next generation of construction workers is like Gen-eral Motors going to the consumers and asking them for adviceon solving the problem of rising steel prices,” says Sizemore.

gether to rethink the way con-struction programs are conceived,

designed and built.As part of its overview of the

owners, ENR is once again present-ing its Top 425 Owners list (see page

12). This list ranks publicly held com-panies based on the construction-in-

progress figures for 2005 they suppliedin federal financial filings to the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission ascompiled by Standard & Poor’s, a divi-sion of The McGraw-Hill Cos. Howev-er, many companies do not separate outtheir construction spending from otherelements of their capital expenditures. Sothis year, for the first time, ENR has pub-lished a ranking of 200 publicly held cor-

porations ranked on their overall capitalexpenditures reported to the SEC and

compiled by Standard and Poor’s (see pp. 9-10).

Recruiting To LeadProbably the biggest issue of

immediate concern to large corpo-rate owners is the lack of personnel

to do their projects. “It’s sad to say, butwork force development, which the industry has

talked about for years, is now a major problem in the industry,”says Greg Sizemore, executive vice president of the Construc-tion Users Roundtable, a Cincinnati-based owners group. “We

For years, large owners have been campaigning for their constructionservice providers to come up with new methods to deliver projectsfaster, cheaper, safer and more efficiently. The industry has respond-ed in fits and starts, providing technological advances and projectdelivery enhancements. But now, large owners are pressing the indus-try to put developing technology and project delivery advances to-

Cover StoryBy Gary J. Tulacz

ENR

6 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

Page 3: Top Owners Sourcebook

However, large owners are attempting to get involved in theissue. One owner initiative that many hope to bear fruit is theCURT Tripartite Initiative, a program to stimulate discussionbetween owners, contractors and labor unions. “We hope,working through the contractors and the unions, to increase thelevel and availability of training in the industry,” says RicardoAparicio, contract manager of GE’s corporate properties andservice operations and president of CURT. “One of the thingsbeing considered is the need for creative approaches to recruit-ment and training,” adds Sizemore. For example, he asks whetheran apprentice always needs to spend a whole day at work andthen go to training classes at night. “These are things we arethinking about,” he says.

Going Where the Workers AreFor some big owners, one answer to local worker shortages maysimply be to consider relocating the work, if not the project,where labor availability is less of a concern. “Much of the engi-neering on a project can be done anywhere. You can get equip-ment from abroad. And, with modularization, process con-struction can be done almost anywhere,” says Gionfriddo. Hesays that large owners increasingly are exploring and using off-shore sites to fabricate and preassemble process elements thatused to be done at the jobsite. “Owners are simply going wherethe skilled labor is available,” he says.

Many of the large process-oriented companies, particularlyin the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, already are usingmodular construction and more may be following that lead.“We’ve seen several companies successfully using modulariza-tion and we are now investigating it ourselves,” says Tibbitt ofJohnson & Johnson.

For many large owners, the construction industry seemsfragmented and uncoordinated, resulting in a product that is theresult of a sequence of disjointed operations. “Everyone saysthey have a process that works, but deep down, those process-es work only within their particular silos,” says Weise. “The bigproblem is to get people to look beyond their own silos andassess the flow the construction process as a whole.”

But the advent of new technologies and some evolving atti-tudes in the industry have some owners see progress. “We arebeginning to see a shift in the paradigm from project deliveryto asset delivery,” says Aparicio. He points out that, from anowner’s perspective, a construction job is not the delivery of aproject but the delivery of an asset to serve a specific functionand all parties to the project should be focused on that end. “Weneed a greater integration of teams and collaboration among theparties to avoid a ‘not-my-job’ attitude in the industry,” he says.

Evidence of the need for a more comprehensive, collabora-tive approach was shown in a survey on owners’ use of programmanagement in delivering capital programs conducted by FMI,a Raleigh, N.C.-based management consultant, and Construc-tion Management Association of America, McLean, Va., re-

ENR

enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 7

Top Firms with Construction in Progress(in $ millions)

Electronic and Other Electric Products

1 INTEL CORP. 2,897.0

2 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES 1,121.1

3 CORNING INC. 1,061.0

4 EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. 303.0

5 MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. 235.8

6 SPANSION INC. 153.0

7 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INC. 130.0

8 HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC. 113.9

9 INT’L RECTIFIER CORP. 112.2

10 AMKOR TECHNOLOGY INC. 103.4

Paper and Allied Products

1 KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP. 391.3

2 3M CO. 331.0

3 MEADWESTVACO CORP. 181.0

4 SMURFIT-STONE CONTAINER CORP. 169.0

5 AVERY DENNISON CORP. 113.5

6 SONOCO PRODUCTS CO. 68.9

7 SEALED AIR CORP. 66.7

8 TEMPLE-INLAND INC. 62.0

9 BUCKEYE TECHNOLOGIES INC. 43.5

10 GREIF INC. 38.2

Food and Allied Products

1 PEPSICO INC. 1,066.0

2 KRAFT FOODS INC. 651.0

3 TYSON FOODS INC. 407.0

4 ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS INC. 403.1

5 COCA-COLA CO. 306.0

6 COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES INC. 301.0

7 ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO. 299.0

8 MOLSON COORS BREWING CO. 266.5

9 GENERAL MILLS INC. 252.0

10 KELLOGG CO. 237.3

Primary Metal Industries

1 ALCOA INC. 2,066.0

2 CENTURY ALUMINUM CO. 358.7

3 WHEELING PITTSBURGH CORP. 145.0

4 AK STEEL HOLDING CORP. 102.8

5 HARSCO CORP. 91.2

6 OLIN CORP. 62.2

7 PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP. 46.6

8 MAVERICK TUBE CORP. 46.5

9 OREGON STEEL MILLS INC. 43.9

10 QUANEX CORP. 30.7

Health Services

1 HCA INC. 949.0

2 TENET HEALTHCARE CORP. 360.0

3 TRIAD HOSPITALS INC. 226.3

4 UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES 191.7

5 HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOC 152.5

6 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC. 98.9

7 LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS INC. 78.4

8 MANOR CARE INC. 56.6

9 KINDRED HEALTHCARE INC. 50.8

10 HEALTHSOUTH CORP. 44.5

Retail Stores

1 TARGET CORP. 1158.0

2 HOME DEPOT INC. 843.0

3 KROGER CO. 511.0

4 KOHL’S CORP. 185.2

5 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP. 180.6

6 AUTOZONE INC. 155.3

7 LIMITED BRANDS INC. 150.0

8 CARMAX INC. 124.4

9 DILLARDS INC. 92.3

10 NORDSTROM INC. 84.5

Industrial Equipment and Machinery

1 CATERPILLAR INC. 696.0

2 DEERE & CO. 276.0

3 AMERICAN STANDARD COS. INC. 208.8

4 CUMMINS INC. 137.0

5 DIEBOLD INC. 113.0

6 EMC CORP. 108.5

7 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 92.9

8 APPLIED MATERIALS INC. 85.9

9 XEROX CORP. 83.0

10 TECUMSEH PRODUCTS CO. 78.2

Transportation Equipment

1 GENERAL MOTORS CORP. 4,099.0

2 FORD MOTOR CO. 2,736.0

3 BOEING CO. 1,174.0

4 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. 433.0

5 DELPHI CORP. 245.0

6 VISTEON CORP. 200.0

7 GOODRICH CORP. 178.9

8 BORGWARNER INC. 141.6

9 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. 137.0

10 HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC. 113.5

Chemicals and Allied Products

1 JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2,504.0

2 PFIZER INC. 2,244.0

3 LILLY (ELI) & CO. 2,070.6

4 WYETH 1,516.0

5 DOW CHEMICAL 1,342.0

6 DU PONT (E I) DE NEMOURS 1,082.0

7 MERCK & CO. 1,015.5

8 GENENTECH INC. 964.5

9 AMGEN INC. 958.0

10 ABBOTT LABORATORIES 920.6

Electric, Gas and Sanitary Products

1 AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER 2,217.0

2 ENTERGY CORP. 1,524.1

3 AES CORP. (THE) 1,441.0

4 PUBLIC SERVICE ENTRP GRP INC. 1,428.0

5 SOUTHERN CO. 1,367.0

6 CALPINE CORP. 1,111.2

7 EL PASO CORP. 1,100.0

8 EDISON INTERNATIONAL 956.0

9 DOMINION RESOURCES INC. 954.0

10 DUKE ENERGY CORP. 946.0

Page 4: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

8 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

technology not as a toy or novelty, but as a way to change theprocess to make it more efficient,” he says.

CURT, the Associated General Contractors, Arlington, Va.,and the American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C., areattempting to answer these questions. The organizations onOct. 11 announced that they have formed a new strategy groupnamed 3xPT to work toward an industry process transforma-tion. The group will attempt to show through practical exam-ples how to best use new technologies to maximize productivi-ty through early planning and collaboration. 3xPT plans to helpdefine roles and responsibilities in the process through modelcontracts, promote collaboration and early contributions ofexpertise from all participants in the construction process anddefine protocols for sharing digital information (see story, p. 66).

Tibbitt, the owner rep on 3xPT, says technology will allowmanagers to change some basic processes to make projects moreefficient. This would mean a blurring of roles for many partic-ipants, as contractors and subs would be introduced sooner andhave a more input on design and management issues. “It alsoforces the owner to lead, and to share information widelyamong all participants in the process,” Tibbitt says.

For the industry, the opportunities for an integrated con-struction process hold out great promise, but it will take morethan a snap of the fingers to make it work. “The software is nowat the point where it can effect change,” says John Tocci, pres-ident of Tocci Building Corp., Woburn, Mass., and AGC rep-

resentative of CURT’s 3xPT committee.“Just think of how much owners could savein nondiscretionary change orders througheliminating design conflicts at the start.”

But he points out that major impedi-ments to wider adoption of a collaborativeand technological approach to projectmanagement include owner concerns overliability, and risk avoidance and shifting.“There are elements of risk and overheadcosts to the process,” says Tocci. “Theopportunity for reward is so great thatowners should be willing to bear some ofthe risk during the transition, to create alitigation-free zone. If owners want this,they should bear a portion of the costs andthey shouldn’t kill us if we fall off the newbicycle we are learning to ride.”

The transition in construction from tra-ditional, narrowly tailored roles and re-sponsibilities, to a broader, more integrat-ed approach where lines are blurred, willnot be easy. “We changed our processes toreflect the new technologies available inthe industry,” says Weise of Intel. “But wefound that changing behaviors may the thehardest thing we did.” �

leased Oct. 18. The survey covered 171 owners doing $64.6 bil-lion in projects. It showed that owners increasingly are lookingto program management to provide a more comprehensive ap-proach to managing the construction process. The surveyshowed 85% of the owners used some form of program man-agement to deliver their capital programs. “This confirms ourbelief that the use of program management is growing as own-ers realize that they don’t have the internal resources needed tomanage programs effectively,” says CMAA Executive DirectorBruce D’Agostino.

Part of this push toward program management is theincreasing need by owners for a more collaborative or integrat-ed approach toward executing projects. “The survey showedthat owners that treated their construction program as a singleprogram managed by a single service provider, rather than as aseries of projects to be managed independently, saved money,”says Mark Bridgers, senior consultant for FMI. This shows thatcollaboration and concentration in management lowers pro-gram costs, he says. And new technologies are helping to pushthe industry toward this more integrated management ap-proach, says Bridgers.

Blurring the RolesAparicio agrees that the development of new technologies isproviding the industry with an opportunity to break through thesilos in the industry. “The question is how do we integrate this

Cover Story

U.S. Dept. of Commerce Construction Put-in-Place$ billions (current dollars)

PERCENT CHG.TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 2005 2006 2007 05-06 06-07

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 1,143.5 1,167.5 1,170.9 +2.1 +0.3

RESIDENTIAL 650.5 604.8 561.3 –7.0 –7.2

Lodging 13.1 19.7 22.6 +50.0 +14.7

Office 47.7 54.9 61.4 +15.1 +11.8

Commercial 73.7 81.8 90.0 +11.0 +10.0

Health Care 36.6 41.4 46.7 +13.1 +12.8

Educational 78.6 84.1 88.3 +7.0 +5.0

Religious 7.8 8.2 8.5 +5.1 +3.7

Public Safety 10.0 11.1 12.0 11.0 +8.1

Amusement and Recreation 18.5 22.6 25.5 22.2 +12.8

Transportation 26.9 30.1 31.0 +11.9 +3.0

Communication 13.4 15.1 16.7 12.7 +10.6

Power 37.0 41.1 43.9 +11.1 +6.8

Highway and Street 65.7 76.2 81.5 +16.0 +7.0

Sewerage and Waste Disposal 16.5 19.8 19.2 +20.0 –3.0

Water Supply 11.4 12.8 12.8 +12.3 0.0

Conservation and Development 5.0 5.7 5.4 +14.0 –5.3

Manufacturing 31.1 38.3 44.0 23.2 +14.9

SOURCE: U.S. DEPT. OF COMMERCEEFIGURES FOR 2007 ARE ESTIMATED. FEDERAL INDUSTRIAL INCLUDES WEAPONS R&D AND PRODUCTION, ATOMIC WASTE ISOLATION AND REPRO-CESSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP; CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDES ELECTRIC POWER DAMS.

Page 5: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 9

The Top Capital Spenders

1 GENERAL MOTORS CORP., Detroit, Mich. 3700 23,675.0

2 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., New York, N.Y. 4800 15,324.0

3 WAL-MART STORES, Bentonville, Ark. 5300 14,563.0

4 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., Fairfield, Conn. 9900 14,441.0

5 EXXON MOBIL CORP., Irving, Texas 2900 13,839.0

6 CONOCOPHILLIPS, Houston, Texas 2900 11,620.0

7 CHEVRON CORP., San Ramon, Calif. 2900 8,701.0

8 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, New York, N.Y. 6300 8,211.0

9 FORD MOTOR CO., Dearborn, Mich. 3700 7,517.0

10 CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP., Oklahoma City, Okla. 1300 6,781.6

11 INTEL CORP., Santa Clara, Calif. 3600 5,818.0

12 AT&T INC., San Antonio, Texas 4800 5,576.0

13 SPRINT NEXTEL CORP., Reston, Va. 4800 5,057.0

14 DEVON ENERGY CORP., Oklahoma City, Okla. 1300 4,090.0

15 DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, Tulsa, Okla. 7500 3,951.4

16 HOME DEPOT INC., Atlanta, Ga. 5200 3,881.0

17 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., Armonk, N.Y. 7300 3,842.0

18 CITIGROUP INC., New York, N.Y. 6100 3,724.0

19 APACHE CORP., Houston, Texas 1300 3,715.9

20 COMCAST CORP., Philadelphia, Pa. 4800 3,621.0

21 BELLSOUTH CORP., Atlanta, Ga. 4800 3,457.0

22 ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP., The Woodlands, Texas 1300 3,408.0

23 TARGET CORP., Minneapolis, Minn. 5300 3,388.0

24 LOWE’S COMPANIES INC., Mooresville, N.C. 5200 3,379.0

25 DOMINION RESOURCES INC., Richmond, Va. 4900 3,358.0

26 TIME WARNER INC., New York, N.Y. 7800 3,246.0

27 AVIS BUDGET GROUP INC., New York, N.Y. 6500 2,936.0

28 XTO ENERGY INC., Fort Worth, Texas 1300 2,925.0

29 MARATHON OIL CORP., Houston, Texas 2900 2,890.0

30 JOHNSON & JOHNSON, New Brunswick, N.J. 2800 2,632.0

31 FEDEX CORP., Memphis, Tenn. 4500 2,518.0

32 OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP., Los Angeles, Calif. 1300 2,423.0

33 CATERPILLAR INC., Peoria, Ill. 3500 2,415.0

34 AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER, Columbus, Ohio 4900 2,404.0

35 SOUTHERN CO., Atlanta, Ga. 4900 2,370.0

36 CIT GROUP INC., New York, N.Y. 6100 2,359.1

37 HESS CORP., New York, N.Y. 2900 2,341.0

38 DUKE ENERGY CORP., Charlotte, N.C. 4900 2,309.0

39 ALTRIA GROUP INC., New York, N.Y. 2100 2,206.0

40 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, Omaha, Neb. 6300 2,195.0

41 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC., Atlanta, Ga. 4200 2,187.0

42 PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., Cincinnati, Ohio 2800 2,181.0

43 UNION PACIFIC CORP., Omaha, Neb. 4000 2,169.0

44 EXELON CORP., Chicago, Ill. 4900 2,165.0

45 VALERO ENERGY CORP., San Antonio, Texas 2900 2,133.0

46 ALCOA INC., New York, N.Y. 3300 2,124.0

47 PFIZER INC., New York, N.Y. 2800 2,106.0

48 HEWLETT-PACKARD CO., Palo Alto, Calif. 3500 1,995.0

49 CONSOLIDATED NATURAL GAS CO., Richmond, Va. 4900 1,931.0

50 ENTERGY CORP., Clinton, Miss. 4900 1,888.8

51 EDISON INTERNATIONAL, Rosemead, Calif. 4900 1,868.0

52 WALT DISNEY CO., Burbank, Calif. 4800 1,823.0

53 PG&E CORP., San Francisco, Calif. 4900 1,804.0

54 BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE, Fort Worth, Texas 4000 1,750.0

55 PEPSICO INC., Purchase, N.Y. 2000 1,736.0

56 EOG RESOURCES INC., Houston, Texas 1300 1,724.8

57 EL PASO CORP., Houston, Texas 4900 1,718.0

58 FPL GROUP INC., Juno Beach, Fla. 4900 1,718.0

59 QWEST COMMUNICATION INT’L INC., Denver, Colo. 4800 1,613.0

60 CONSOLIDATED EDISON INC., New York, N.Y. 4900 1,608.0

61 MCDONALD’S CORP., Oak Brook, Ill. 5800 1,606.8

62 DOW CHEMICAL, Midland, Mich. 2800 1,597.0

63 HCA INC., Nashville, Tenn. 8000 1,592.0

64 CORNING INC., Corning, N.Y. 3600 1,553.0

65 BOEING CO., Chicago, Ill. 3700 1,547.0

66 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, Sunnyvale, Calif. 3600 1,513.2

67 ECHOSTAR COMMUN. CORP., Englewood, Colo. 4800 1,506.4

68 CVS CORP., Woonsocket, R.I. 5900 1,495.4

69 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC., New York, N.Y. 6200 1,421.0

70 SEMPRA ENERGY, San Diego, Calif. 4900 1,404.0

71 MERCK & CO., Whitehouse Station, N.J. 2800 1,402.7

72 GENENTECH INC., South San Francisco, Calif. 2800 1,399.8

73 RYDER SYSTEM INC., Medley, Fla. 7500 1,399.4

74 SAFEWAY INC., Pleasanton, Calif. 5400 1,383.5

75 E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS, Wilmington, Del. 2800 1,340.0

76 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC., Dallas, Texas 3600 1,330.0

77 KROGER CO., Cincinnati, Ohio 5400 1,306.0

78 ALLTEL CORP., Little Rock, Ark. 4800 1,302.4

79 WILLIAMS COS. INC., Tulsa, Okla. 4900 1,299.0

80 ELI LILLY & CO., Indianapolis, Ind. 2800 1,298.1

81 XCEL ENERGY INC., Minneapolis, Minn. 4900 1,289.8

82 MURPHY OIL CORP., El Dorado, Ark. 2900 1,246.2

83 WALGREEN CO., Deerfield, Ill. 5900 1,237.5

84 NEWMONT MINING CORP., Denver, Colo. 1000 1,226.0

85 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, Dallas, Texas 4500 1,210.0

86 FIRSTENERGY CORP., Akron, Ohio 4900 1,208.0

87 ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Abbott Park, Ill. 2800 1,207.5

88 PROGRESS ENERGY INC., Raleigh, N.C. 4900 1,206.0

89 LIBERTY GLOBAL INC., Englewood, Colo. 4800 1,195.0

90 DELPHI CORP., Troy, Mich. 3700 1,183.0

91 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC., Houston, Texas 4900 1,180.0

92 KRAFT FOODS INC., Northfield, Ill. 2000 1,171.0

93 PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES CO., Irving, Texas 1300 1,162.9

94 HARRAHS ENTERTAINMENT INC., Las Vegas, Nev. 7900 1,159.5

95 INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO., Stamford, Conn. 2600 1,155.0

96 THE AES CORP., Arlington, Va. 4900 1,143.0

97 ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS INC., Saint Louis, Mo. 2000 1,136.7

98 CSX CORP., Jacksonville, Fla. 4000 1,136.0

99 JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP., Forest Hills, N.Y. 4500 1,124.0

100 TXU CORP., Dallas, Texas 4900 1,104.0

CAPITALEXPENDITURES

FIRM TYPE 2005-06†

RANK* FIRM (SIC CODE**) ($ MIL.)

CAPITALEXPENDITURES

FIRM TYPE 2005-06†

RANK* FIRM (SIC CODE**) ($ MIL.)

Companies are ranked here by capital expenditures—funds used for additions to the company’s property, plant and equipment. They include expenditures for capital leas-es, increases in funds for construction, reclassification of inventory to property, plant and equipment. They do not include capital expenditures of discontinued operations,changes resulting from foreign currency fluctuations, decreases in funds for construction presented as a use of funds, or property, plant and equipment of acquired firms.

* = Based on data supplied by Standard & Poor’s, a unit of the McGraw-Hill Cos.; ** = For SIC Codes explanations, see page 13; †= Covers June 2005-May 2006 (Continued on page 10)

Page 6: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

10 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

The Top Capital Spenders

101 WHITING PETROLEUM CORP., Denver, Colo. 1300 1,096.5

102 WYETH, Madison, N.J. 2800 1,081.3

103 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS INC., Saint Louis, Mo. 4800 1,080.0

104 DTE ENERGY CO., Detroit, Mich. 4900 1,065.0

105 MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., Boise, Idaho 3600 1,064.8

106 NEWFIELD EXPLORATION CO., Houston, Texas 1300 1,054.0

107 NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORP., Norfolk, Va. 4000 1,025.0

108 PUBLIC SERVICE ENTRP GRP INC., Newark, N.J. 4900 1,024.0

109 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., Issaquah, Wash. 5300 995.4

110 FOREST CITY ENTERPRISES, Cleveland, Ohio 6500 973.4

111 SUNOCO INC., Philadelphia, Pa. 2900 970.0

112 AMEREN CORP., Saint Louis, Mo. 4900 964.0

113 WEYERHAEUSER CO., Federal Way, Wash. 2400 957.0

114 3M CO., Saint Paul, Minn. 2600 943.0

115 AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS INC., Allentown, Pa. 2800 929.5

116 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Hartford, Conn. 3700 929.0

117 COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES INC., Atlanta, Ga. 2000 914.0

118 NEWS CORP., New York, N.Y. 7800 901.0

119 COCA-COLA CO., Atlanta, Ga. 2000 899.0

120 DIRECTV GROUP INC., El Segundo, Calif. 4800 888.7

121 WYNN RESORTS LTD, Las Vegas, Nev. 7900 877.1

122 PRAXAIR INC., Danbury, Conn. 2800 877.0

123 AMGEN INC., Thousand Oaks, Calif. 2800 867.0

124 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP., Bethesda, Md. 3700 865.0

125 ENTERPRISE GP HOLDINGS, Houston, Texas 4900 864.5

126 LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., Las Vegas, Nev. 7900 860.6

127 DEERE & CO., Moline, Ill. 3500 854.6

128 PACCAR INC., Bellevue, Wash. 3700 848.5

129 GOOGLE INC., Mountain View, Calif. 7300 838.2

130 STATION CASINOS INC., Las Vegas, Nev. 7900 830.8

131 EMBARQ CORP., Overland Park, Kan. 4800 828.0

132 COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP., El Segundo, Calif. 7300 826.9

133 NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP., Los Angeles, Calif. 3800 824.0

134 UNITED RENTALS INC., Greenwich, Conn. 7300 823.0

135 DELTA AIR LINES INC., Atlanta, Ga. 4500 814.0

136 MICROSOFT CORP., Redmond, Wash. 7300 812.0

137 PPL CORP., Allentown, Pa. 4900 811.0

138 KOHL’S CORP., Menomonee Falls, Wis. 5300 799.4

139 WISCONSIN ENERGY CORP., Milwaukee, Wis. 4900 794.8

140 NOBLE ENERGY INC., Houston, Texas 1300 785.6

141 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC., Bethesda, Md. 7000 780.0

142 NORTHEAST UTILITIES, Springfield, Mass. 4900 775.4

143 CALPINE CORP., San Jose, Calif. 4900 774.0

144 CABLEVISION SYS CORP., Bethpage, N.Y. 4800 769.3

145 CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP INC., Baltimore, Md. 4900 760.0

146 MGM MIRAGE, Las Vegas, Nev. 7900 759.9

147 UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., Pittsburgh, Pa. 3300 741.0

148 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO., New York, N.Y. 2800 738.0

149 ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS, Greenwood Village, Colo. 4800 734.5

150 HOUSTON EXPLORATION CO., Houston, Texas 1300 728.9

151 DELL INC., Round Rock, Texas 3500 728.0

152 TELEPHONE & DATA SYSTEMS INC., Chicago, Ill. 4800 720.6

153 ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP., Plano, Texas 7300 718.0

154 QUESTAR CORP., Salt Lake City, Utah 4900 715.9

155 PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP INC., Somers, N.Y. 2000 715.0

156 KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP., Dallas, Texas 2600 709.6

157 ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES INC., Scottsdale, Ariz. 4900 695.9

158 CENTERPOINT ENERGY INC., Houston, Texas 4900 693.0

159 CISCO SYSTEMS INC., San Jose, Calif. 3500 692.0

160 PHELPS DODGE CORP., Phoenix, Ariz. 3300 686.0

161 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Morristown, N.J. 3700 684.0

162 AMR CORP., Fort Worth, Texas 4500 681.0

163 JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., Milwaukee, Wis. 2500 664.1

164 CIMAREX ENERGY CO., Denver, Colo. 1300 659.0

165 HALLIBURTON CO., Houston, Texas 1600 651.0

166 BEST BUY CO INC., Richfield, Minn. 5700 648.0

167 PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORP., Phoenix, Ariz. 4900 645.6

168 STARBUCKS CORP., Seattle, Wash. 5800 644.0

169 PEABODY ENERGY CORP., Saint Louis, Mo. 1200 643.9

170 SIERRA PACIFIC RESOURCES, Reno, Nev. 4900 641.4

171 GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Akron, Ohio 3000 634.0

172 ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO., Decatur, Ill. 2000 623.8

173 BOYD GAMING CORP., Las Vegas, Nev. 7900 618.4

174 YUM BRANDS INC., Louisville, Ky. 5800 609.0

175 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO., New York, N.Y. 6100 608.0

176 EMC CORP., Hopkinton, Mass. 3500 601.1

177 GAP INC., San Francisco, Calif. 5600 600.0

178 CMS ENERGY CORP., Jackson, Mich. 4900 593.0

179 NISOURCE INC., Merrillville, Ind. 4900 590.4

180 US CELLULAR CORP., Chicago, Ill. 4800 586.6

181 VISTEON CORP., Van Buren Township, Mich. 3700 585.0

182 PUGET ENERGY INC., Bellevue, Wash. 4900 583.6

183 MOTOROLA INC., Schaumburg, Ill. 3600 583.0

184 QUALCOMM INC., San Diego, Calif. 3600 576.0

185 TENET HEALTHCARE CORP., Dallas, Texas 8000 576.0

186 TYSON FOODS INC., Springdale, Ark. 2000 571.0

187 LEAR CORP., Southfield, Mich. 2500 568.4

188 FEDERATED DEPT STORES, Cincinnati, Ohio 5300 568.0

189 SEARS HOLDINGS CORP., Hoffman Estates, Ill. 5300 546.0

190 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. INC., Phoenix, Ariz. 4200 544.4

191 MORGAN STANLEY, New York, N.Y. 6200 540.0

192 KEYSPAN CORP., Brooklyn, N.Y. 4900 539.5

193 SARA LEE CORP., Chicago, Ill. 2000 538.0

194 J.C. PENNEY CO., Plano, Texas 5300 535.0

195 CONSOLIDATED ENERGY INC., Pittsburgh, Pa. 1200 523.5

196 EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Saint Louis, Mo. 3600 518.0

197 BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING INC., Chicago, Ill. 8000 515.1

198 PLAINS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION CO., Houston, Texas 1300 514.9

199 MDU RESOURCES GROUP INC., Bismarck, N.D. 4900 510.9

200 SYSCO CORP., Houston, Texas 5100 390.2

CAPITALEXPENDITURES

FIRM TYPE 2005-06†

RANK* FIRM (SIC CODE**) ($ MIL.)

CAPITALEXPENDITURES

FIRM TYPE 2005-06†

RANK* FIRM (SIC CODE**) ($ MIL.)

* = Based on data supplied by Standard & Poor’s, a unit of the McGraw-Hill Cos.; ** = For SIC Codes explanations, see page 13; †= Covers June 2005-May 2006

Page 7: Top Owners Sourcebook

T

ENR

en

r.com

N

ovem

ber

27,2

006

�EN

RSO

URCE

BO

OK

�13

How

To

Use

The

Tabl

es�

K E

Y TO

COM

PAN

Y TY

PE U

SIN

G TH

E U.

S.DE

PT.O

F CO

MM

ERCE

’S S

TAN

DARD

INDU

S-T R

IAL

CLAS

SIFI

CATI

ON C

ODES

(SIC

):10

00=M

etal

min

ing;

120

0=Co

al m

inin

g; 1

300=

Oil

and

gas

extra

ctio

n; 1

400=

Nonm

etal

lic m

iner

als,

exce

pt f

uel;

1 500

=Gen

eral

bui

ldin

gco

nstru

ctio

n; 1

600=

Heav

y co

nstru

ctio

n,ex

cept

bui

ldin

g; 2

000=

Food

and

kin

dred

pro

d-uc

ts; 2

100=

Toba

cco

prod

ucts

; 220

0=Te

xtile

mill

pro

duct

s; 2

300=

Appa

rel a

nd o

ther

tex-

tile

prod

ucts

; 240

0=Lu

mbe

r and

woo

d pr

oduc

ts; 2

500=

Furn

iture

and

fixt

ures

; 260

0=Pa

-pe

r and

allie

d pr

oduc

ts; 2

700=

Prin

ting

and

publ

ishin

g; 2

800=

Chem

ical

s an

d al

lied

prod

-uc

ts; 2

900=

Petro

leum

and

coa

l pro

duct

s; 3

000=

Rubb

er a

nd m

iscel

lane

ous

plas

tics

prod

-uc

ts; 3

200=

Ston

e,cl

ay,a

nd g

lass

pro

duct

s; 3

300=

Prim

ary

met

al in

dust

ries;

340

0=Fa

b-ric

ated

met

al p

rodu

cts;

350

0=In

dust

rial

mac

hine

ry a

nd e

quip

men

t; 36

00=E

lect

roni

can

d ot

her e

lect

ric e

quip

men

t; 37

00=T

rans

porta

tion

equi

pmen

t; 38

00=I

nstru

men

ts a

ndre

late

d pr

oduc

ts;

4000

=Rai

lroad

tra

nspo

rtatio

n; 4

200=

Truc

king

and

war

ehou

sing

;44

00=W

ater

tran

spor

tatio

n; 4

500=

Tran

spor

tatio

n by

air;

460

0=Pi

pelin

es,e

xcep

t nat

ural

gas;

470

0=Tr

ansp

orta

tion

serv

ices

; 480

0=Co

mm

unic

atio

ns; 4

900=

Elec

tric,

gas,

and

san-

itary

ser

vices

; 50

00=W

hole

sale

tra

de-d

urab

le

good

s;

5100

=Who

lesa

le

trade

-non

-du

rabl

e go

ods;

520

0=Bu

ildin

g m

ater

ials

and

gar

den

supp

lies;

5300

=Gen

eral

mer

chan

-di

se

stor

es;

5400

=Fo

od

stor

es;

5500

=Au

tom

otiv

e de

aler

s an

d se

rvic

e st

atio

ns;

5600

=App

arel

and

acc

esso

ry s

tore

s; 5

700=

Furn

iture

and

hom

e fu

rnis

hing

sto

res;

5800

=Eat

ing

and

drin

king

pla

ces;

590

0=M

isce

llane

ous

reta

il; 6

100=

Nond

epos

itory

inst

itutio

ns;

6200

=Sec

uriti

es a

nd c

omm

oditi

es d

eale

rs a

nd b

roke

rs;

6300

=Ins

uran

ceca

rrie

rs; 6

500=

Real

est

ate;

700

0=Ho

tel a

nd o

ther

lodg

ing

plac

es; 7

200=

Pers

onal

ser

-vi

ces;

730

0=Bu

sine

ss s

ervi

ces;

750

0=Au

to r

epai

r,se

rvic

es a

nd p

arki

ng; 7

800=

Mot

ion

pict

ures

; 790

0=Am

usem

ent a

nd re

crea

tion

serv

ices

; 800

0=He

alth

ser

vice

s; 8

200=

Edu-

catio

nal s

ervi

ces;

830

0=So

cial

ser

vice

s; 8

700=

Engi

neer

ing

and

man

agem

ent s

ervi

ces;

9900

=Non

clas

sifia

ble

esta

blis

hmen

ts.

� BU

ILDI

NG

VALU

E AD

DED=

Expe

nditu

res

for b

uild

ing

cons

truct

ion

and

build

ing

acqu

i-si

tions

min

us re

tirem

ents

.

� B

UILD

ING

INVE

NTO

RY=

Fisc

al y

ear-

end

bala

nce

of th

e co

st o

f bui

ldin

gs o

wne

d by

the

com

pany

on

owne

d or

leas

ed la

nd.

� N

M=

Not m

eani

ngfu

l.

� N

A=No

t ava

ilabl

e.

� SO

URCE

=St

anda

rd &

Poo

r’s,a

div

isio

n of

The

McG

raw

-Hill

Com

pani

es.

ENR

12�

ENR

SOUR

CEB

OO

K�

Nov

embe

r 27

,200

6 e

nr.

com

The T

op

Ow

ners

CONS

T. IN

PRO

GRES

SBL

DG. V

ALUE

ADD

EDTO

TAL

BLDG

.IN

VENT

ORY

FIRM

TYP

E20

05%

CHG

.20

05%

CHG

.20

05%

CHG

.RA

NKFIR

M(S

IC C

ODE)

($ M

IL.)

VS. 2

004

($ M

IL.)

VS. 2

004

($ M

IL.)

VS. 2

004

31HC

A IN

C.,N

ash

ville

, Te

nn

.80

0094

9.0

+40

82-8

28,

063

+1

32DU

KE E

NER

GY C

ORP.

,Ch

arlo

tte,

N.C

.49

0094

6.0

+32

-6,2

32-8

8240

,574

-13

33FP

L GR

OUP

INC.

,Ju

no

Bea

ch,

Fla

.49

0094

5.0

-37

1,63

1+1

333

,351

+5

34AB

BOTT

LAB

ORAT

ORIE

S,A

bb

ott

Par

k, I

ll.28

0092

0.6

-413

6N

M2,

655

+5

35FI

RSTE

NER

GY C

ORP.

,Akr

on

, O

hio

4900

897.

0+3

289

8+7

323

,790

+4

36HO

ME

DEPO

T IN

C.,A

tlan

ta,

Ga.

5200

843.

0-4

01,

731

+23

14,0

56+1

4

37EX

ELON

COR

P.,C

hic

ago

, Ill

.49

0084

0.0

+42

1,14

2+1

29,8

53+4

38PR

OGRE

SS E

NER

GY I

NC.

,Ral

eig

h,

N.C

.49

0081

3.0

+289

8+5

124

,044

+4

39XC

EL E

NER

GY I

NC.

,Min

nea

po

lis,

Min

n.

4900

783.

5+9

-251

-130

24,0

54-1

40CO

NSO

LIDA

TED

EDIS

ON I

NC.

,New

Yo

rk,

N.Y

.49

0077

1.0

-43

1,11

0+1

20,5

66+6

41SI

ERRA

PAC

IFIC

RES

OURC

ES,R

eno

, N

ev.

4900

765.

0+8

855

7+3

47,

567

+8

42SC

HERI

NG-

PLOU

GH,K

enilw

ort

h,

N.J

.28

0076

1.0

-640

-79

3,23

8+1

43PG

&E

CORP

.,S

an F

ran

cisc

o,

Cal

if.

4900

738.

0+6

41,

521

+18

32,0

30+5

44ST

ATIO

N C

ASIN

OS I

NC.

,Las

Veg

as,

Nev

.79

0072

9.9

+202

82+8

21,

028

+9

45AI

R PR

ODUC

TS &

CHE

MIC

ALS

INC.

,Alle

nto

wn

, P

a.28

0070

0.4

+74

38N

M82

8+5

46CA

TERP

ILLA

R IN

C.,P

eori

a, I

ll.35

0069

6.0

+19

106

+28

3,19

5+3

47BA

XTER

IN

TERN

ATIO

NAL

IN

C.,D

eerfi

eld

, Ill

.38

0068

2.0

+5-7

6-1

681,

594

-5

48KR

AFT

FOOD

S IN

C.,N

ort

hfie

ld,

Ill.

2000

651.

0+1

6-9

53,

551

+0

49M

GM M

IRAG

E,L

as V

egas

, N

ev.

7900

607.

4+1

033,

367

+683

7,59

5+8

0

50N

ORTH

EAST

UTI

LITI

ES,S

pri

ng

field

, M

ass.

4900

600.

4+5

772

1+2

68,

969

+9

51W

ISCO

NSI

N E

NER

GY C

ORP.

,Milw

auke

e, W

is.

4900

596.

6-1

619

+2,8

609,

759

+7

52HA

RRAH

S EN

TERT

AIN

MEN

T IN

C.,L

as V

egas

, N

ev.

7900

585.

3+1

893,

782

+1,0

507,

571

+100

53BR

ISTO

L-M

YERS

SQU

IBB

CO.,

New

Yo

rk,

N.Y

.28

0057

0.0

+263

-89

4,56

0+1

54W

EYER

HAEU

SER

CO.,

Fed

eral

Way

, W

ash

.24

0053

3.0

+98

-21

-112

3,13

9-1

55TX

U CO

RP.,

Dal

las,

Tex

as49

0052

6.0

+20

1,15

2N

M29

,054

+4

56CM

S EN

ERGY

COR

P.,J

acks

on

, M

ich

.49

0052

0.0

+41

-1,7

83-1

6012

,968

-12

57KR

OGER

CO.

,Cin

cin

nat

i, O

hio

5400

511.

0-6

NA

NA

NA

NA

58N

EW Y

ORK

TIM

ES C

O.,N

ew Y

ork

, N

.Y.

2700

504.

8+4

3-9

5-6

0173

6-1

1

59EC

HOST

AR C

OMM

UNIC

ATIO

NS

CORP

.,E

ng

lew

oo

d,

Co

lo.

4800

491.

7+8

04

-69

163

+2

60JO

HNSO

N C

ONTR

OLS

INC.

,Milw

auke

e, W

is.

2500

479.

4+2

271

-35

1,78

4+4

The

Top

Owne

rs

The

ran

king

s bel

ow a

re b

ased

on

cons

truc

tion

in p

rogr

ess,

the

capi

taliz

ed a

mou

nt f

or p

lant

and

str

uctu

res

cons

truc

tion

not

com

plet

ed d

urin

g th

e ye

ar.

The

inf

orm

atio

n is

com

pile

d by

Stan

dard

&Po

or’s

from

the

late

st a

vaila

ble

audi

ted

resu

lts fr

om

10-K

and

cor

pora

te a

nnua

l rep

orts

. How

ever

, man

y co

rpor

a-

tions

’ filin

gs d

o no

t bre

ak o

ut c

onst

ruct

ion

from

oth

er c

apita

l

expe

nditu

res,

and

they

are

abs

ent f

rom

this

list

. To

fill t

his g

ap,

EN

R fo

r the

firs

t tim

e is

pub

lishi

ng a

sepa

rate

rank

ing

of fi

rms

by th

eir

repo

rted

cap

ital e

xpen

ditu

res.

The

Top

Owne

rsCO

NST.

IN P

ROGR

ESS

BLDG

. VAL

UE A

DDED

TOTA

L BL

DG.

INVE

NTOR

YFIR

M T

YPE

2005

% C

HG.

2005

% C

HG.

2005

% C

HG.

RANK

FIRM

(SIC

COD

E)($

MIL.

)VS

. 200

4($

MIL.

)VS

. 200

4($

MIL.

)VS

. 200

4

1GE

NER

AL M

OTOR

S CO

RP.,

Det

roit

, M

ich

.37

004,

099.

0+8

NA

NA

NA

NA

2IN

TEL

CORP

.,S

anta

Cla

ra,

Cal

if.

3600

2,89

7.0

+45

NA

NA

NA

NA

3FO

RD M

OTOR

CO.

,Dea

rbo

rn,

Mic

h.

3700

2,73

6.0

+31

NA

NA

NA

NA

4JO

HNSO

N &

JOH

NSO

N,N

ew B

run

swic

k, N

.J.

2800

2,50

4.0

+40

-32

-105

5,87

5-1

5PF

IZER

IN

C.,N

ew Y

ork

, N

.Y.

2800

2,24

4.0

-6-3

6-1

089,

735

+0

6AM

ERIC

AN E

LECT

RIC

POW

ER,C

olu

mb

us,

Oh

io49

002,

217.

0+9

11,

835

+46

39,1

21+5

7EL

I LI

LLY

& C

O.,I

nd

ian

apo

lis,

Ind

.28

002,

070.

6-3

11,

015

+133

4,58

5+2

8

8AL

COA

INC.

,New

Yo

rk,

N.Y

.33

002,

066.

0+6

912

6-6

66,

303

+2

9VE

RIZO

N C

OMM

UNIC

ATIO

NS

INC.

,New

Yo

rk,

N.Y

.48

001,

651.

0+0

641

+33

16,8

00+4

10EN

TERG

Y CO

RP.,

Clin

ton

, M

iss.

4900

1,52

4.1

+27

372

-59

32,2

08+1

11W

YETH

,Mad

iso

n,

N.J

.28

001,

516.

0-5

81,

862

+272

6,49

3+4

0

12AL

TRIA

GRO

UP I

NC.

,New

Yo

rk,

N.Y

.21

001,

489.

0+1

862

-86

7,42

8+1

13TH

E AE

S CO

RP.,

Arl

ing

ton

, Va

.49

001,

441.

0+5

711

-99

22,3

88+0

14PU

BLIC

SER

VICE

EN

TERP

RISE

GRO

UP I

NC.

,New

ark,

N.J

.49

001,

428.

0-2

5-2

25-1

1318

,896

-1

15SO

UTHE

RN C

O.,A

tlan

ta,

Ga.

4900

1,36

7.0

-18

1,89

5+2

945

,207

+4

16DO

W C

HEM

ICAL

,Mid

lan

d,

Mic

h.

2800

1,34

2.0

+33

-123

-328

3,33

9-4

17BO

EIN

G CO

.,C

hic

ago

, Ill

.37

001,

174.

0+2

5-3

90-1

779,

287

-4

18TA

RGET

COR

P.,M

inn

eap

olis

, M

inn

.53

001,

158.

0+2

01,

656

NM

14,1

74+1

3

19AD

VAN

CED

MIC

RO D

EVIC

ES,S

un

nyv

ale,

Cal

if.

3600

1,12

1.1

+90

-1,4

35-8

761,

028

-58

20CA

LPIN

E CO

RP.,

San

Jo

se,

Cal

if.

4900

1,11

1.2

-74

-6,7

67-9

0315

,992

-30

21EL

PAS

O CO

RP.,

Ho

ust

on

, Te

xas

4900

1,10

0.0

+38

127

NM

37,1

00+0

22E.

I.DU

PON

T DE

NEM

OURS

,Wilm

ing

ton

, D

el.

2800

1,08

2.0

+15

157

NM

3,92

2+4

23PE

PSIC

O IN

C.,P

urc

has

e, N

.Y.

2000

1,06

6.0

+46

131

-16

3,73

6+4

24CO

RNIN

G IN

C.,C

orn

ing

, N

.Y.

3600

1,06

1.0

+20

56N

M1,

999

+3

25M

ERCK

& C

O.,W

hit

eho

use

Sta

tio

n,

N.J

.28

001,

015.

5-3

860

5-2

99,

480

+7

26GE

NEN

TECH

IN

C.,S

ou

th S

an F

ran

cisc

o,

Cal

if.

2800

964.

5+2

0358

0+5

41,

399

+71

27AM

GEN

IN

C.,T

ho

usa

nd

Oak

s, C

alif

.28

0095

8.0

-26

389

+24

2,48

5+1

9

28LA

S VE

GAS

SAN

DS C

ORP.

,Las

Veg

as,

Nev

.79

0095

7.8

+200

215

+975

1,45

4+1

7

29ED

ISON

IN

TERN

ATIO

NAL

,Ro

sem

ead

, C

alif

.49

0095

6.0

+21

1,25

1+2

419

,232

+7

30DO

MIN

ION

RES

OURC

ES I

NC.

,Ric

hm

on

d,

Va.

4900

954.

0+4

23,

400

+119

42,0

63+9

Page 8: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

14 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

The Top OwnersCONST. IN PROGRESS BLDG. VALUE ADDED TOTAL BLDG. INVENTORY

FIRM TYPE 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG.RANK FIRM (SIC CODE) ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004

61 ALLTEL CORP., Little Rock, Ark. 4800 475.4 +23 77 -6 1,211 +7

62 GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Akron, Ohio 3000 445.0 -1 77 -39 1,856 +4

63 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Morristown, N.J. 3700 433.0 +26 93 +48 2,120 +5

64 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC., Atlanta, Ga. 4200 433.0 -20 240 +196 2,404 +11

65 TYSON FOODS INC., Springdale, Ark. 2000 407.0 +87 32 +129 2,339 +1

66 ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS. INC., Saint Louis, Mo. 2000 403.1 -15 220 +7 4,970 +5

67 AMEREN CORP., Saint Louis, Mo. 4900 395.0 -46 509 -82 20,800 +3

68 KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP., Dallas, Texas 2600 391.3 +17 -88 -153 2,350 -4

69 WILLIAMS COS. INC., Tulsa, Okla. 4900 374.0 +72 1,119 +222 17,572 +7

70 PEPCO HOLDINGS INC., Washington, D.C. 4900 364.1 -10 339 +14 11,384 +3

71 TENET HEALTHCARE CORP., Dallas, Texas 8000 360.0 +11 -259 NM 3,868 -6

72 CENTURY ALUMINUM CO., Monterey, Calif. 3300 358.7 +422 6 -93 122 +5

73 3M CO., Saint Paul, Minn. 2600 331.0 -20 98 -63 4,717 +2

74 PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORP., Phoenix, Ariz. 4900 327.2 +27 308 +16 11,163 +3

75 IMCLONE SYSTEMS INC., New York, N.Y. 2800 318.4 +28 1 +10 68 +1

76 CONSOLIDATED NATURAL GAS CO., Richmond, Va. 4900 317.0 +94 1,906 +40 19,126 +11

77 COCA-COLA CO., Atlanta, Ga. 2000 306.0 +33 -130 -163 2,692 -5

78 BOYD GAMING CORP., Las Vegas, Nev. 7900 305.5 +42 209 -78 2,036 +11

79 EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Saint Louis, Mo. 3600 303.0 +22 24 -61 1,426 +2

80 MONSANTO CO., Saint Louis, Mo. 2800 302.0 +6 270 NM 1,136 +31

81 COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES INC., Atlanta, Ga. 2000 301.0 +19 -21 -116 2,176 -1

82 ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO., Decatur, Ill. 2000 299.0 +14 92 NM 2,660 +4

83 WPS RESOURCES CORP., Green Bay, Wis. 4900 286.6 +86 -150 -162 3,138 -5

84 WYNN RESORTS LTD., Las Vegas, Nev. 7900 286.6 -81 1,159 NM 1,159 NM

85 DEERE & CO., Moline, Ill. 3500 276.0 +77 64 -35 1,528 +4

86 MOLSON COORS BREWING CO., Denver, Colo. 2000 266.5 +396 238 NM 968 +33

87 ENSCO INTERNATIONAL INC., Dallas, Texas 1300 259.3 +79 0 NM 0 NM

88 PPL CORP., Allentown, Pa. 4900 259.0 +75 -77 -108 18,615 +0

89 GENERAL MILLS INC., Minneapolis, Minn. 2000 252.0 -15 34 -68 1,430 +2

90 DELPHI CORP., Troy, Mich. 3700 245.0 -60 -308 -476 1,925 -14

91 HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES INC., Rockville, Md. 2800 239.2 +45 0 NM 0 NM

92 KELLOGG CO., Battle Creek, Mich. 2000 237.3 +49 -46 -153 1,459 -3

93 MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., Boise, Idaho 3600 235.8 -6 108 +2,018 2,419 +5

94 MEDTRONIC INC., Minneapolis, Minn. 3800 234.2 -19 64 -10 955 +7

95 MOHAWK INDUSTRIES INC., Calhoun, Ga. 2200 233.5 +199 181 +1,493 560 +48

96 MOSAIC CO., Plymouth, Minn. 2800 232.6 +5 44 -88 781 +6

97 BIOGEN IDEC INC., Cambridge, Mass. 2800 229.7 -47 -31 -118 445 -7

98 TRIAD HOSPITALS INC., Plano, Texas 8000 226.3 -28 250 NM 1,739 +17

99 SARA LEE CORP., Chicago, Ill. 2000 224.0 -21 81 -41 2,133 +4

100 EASTMAN KODAK CO., Rochester, N.Y. 3800 219.0 -7 -67 NM 2,552 -3

101 PUGET ENERGY INC., Bellevue, Wash. 4900 216.5 +67 552 +100 7,233 +8

102 LYONDELL CHEMICAL CO., Houston, Texas 2800 215.0 +15 -161 -103 9,063 -2

103 SMITHFIELD FOODS INC., Smithfield, Va. 2000 210.9 +87 44 -61 1,292 +4

104 QWEST COMMUNICATION INT’L INC., Denver, Colo. 4800 209.0 +11 -102 -452 3,486 -3

105 NSTAR, Boston, Mass. 4900 209.0 +101 364 +91 4,880 +8

106 AMERICAN STANDARD COS. INC., Piscataway, N.J. 3500 208.8 +51 0 -101 709 +0

107 CAMPBELL SOUP CO., Camden, N.J. 2000 208.0 +8 53 +51 1,062 +5

108 VISTEON CORP., Van Buren Township, Mich. 3700 200.0 -34 -750 -315 1,148 -40

109 TECO ENERGY INC., Tampa, Fla. 4900 200.0 -3 31 NM 6,755 +0

110 EASTMAN CHEMICAL CO., Kingsport, Tenn. 2800 199.0 +124 -27 NM 861 -3

Page 9: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

16 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

The Top OwnersCONST. IN PROGRESS BLDG. VALUE ADDED TOTAL BLDG. INVENTORY

FIRM TYPE 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG.RANK FIRM (SIC CODE) ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004

111 HOSPIRA INC., Lake Forest, Ill. 2800 198.1 +13 18 NM 391 +5

112 DIAMOND OFFSHRE DRILLING INC., Houston, Texas 1300 195.4 NM NA NA NA NA

113 UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, King of Prussia, Pa. 8000 191.7 +177 -66 -157 1,170 -5

114 KOHL’S CORP., Menomonee Falls, Wis. 5300 185.2 -46 570 +2 3,389 +20

115 SOUTHERN UNION CO., Houston, Texas 4900 184.4 +9 426 +173 4,368 +11

116 MEADWESTVACO CORP., Stamford, Conn. 2600 181.0 +3 -151 NM 903 -14

117 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., Issaquah, Wash. 5300 180.6 +37 410 +8 5,622 +8

118 PDL BIOPHARMA INC., Fremont, Calif. 2800 180.4 +15 2 -88 43 +5

119 GOODRICH CORP., Charlotte, N.C. 3700 178.9 +89 -12 -123 690 -2

120 OWENS CORNING, Toledo, Ohio 3200 177.0 +38 -7 -150 796 -1

121 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., Portland, Ore. 4900 177.0 +55 232 +47 4,224 +6

122 SCANA CORP., Columbia, S.C. 4900 175.0 -59 355 -7 9,432 +4

123 SMURFIT-STONE CONTAINER CORP., Chicago, Ill. 2600 169.0 +34 -21 NM 681 -3

124 PNM RESOURCES INC., Albuquerque, N.M. 4900 168.2 +35 897 +343 4,373 +26

125 ROHM AND HAAS CO., Philadelphia, Pa. 2800 168.0 +1 -61 -365 1,683 -3

126 DPL INC., Dayton, Ohio 4900 168.0 +117 173 +133 4,668 +4

127 INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAY CORP., Daytona Beach, Fla. 7900 164.1 +100 118 +272 915 +15

128 ALEXANDER & BALDWIN INC., Honolulu, Hawaii 4400 164.0 +34 22 NM 359 +7

129 MEDIMMUNE INC., Gaithersburg, Md. 2800 161.6 +93 1 -99 124 +1

130 UNISOURCE ENERGY CORP., Tucson, Ariz. 4900 160.2 +38 179 +49 4,052 +5

131 CLECO CORP., Pineville, La. 4900 156.1 +44 151 NM 1,993 +8

132 AUTOZONE INC., Memphis, Tenn. 5500 155.3 +77 81 +82 1,451 +6

133 CABOT CORP., Boston, Mass. 2800 154.0 +62 -58 -226 340 -15

134 CELANESE CORP., Dallas, Texas 2800 154.0 +75 72 NM 320 +29

135 WENDY’S INTERNATIONAL INC., Dublin, Ohio 5800 153.2 +50 -61 -148 952 -6

136 IDACORP INC., Boise, Idaho 4900 153.1 +0 153 -5 3,633 +4

137 SPANSION INC., Sunnyvale, Calif. 3600 153.0 +115 -11 -135 1,430 -1

138 TRIBUNE CO., Chicago, Ill. 2700 152.5 -13 7 -80 992 +1

139 HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES INC., Naples, Fla. 8000 152.5 +87 243 +22 1,519 +19

140 HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, Honolulu, Hawaii 4900 150.4 +34 204 +16 3,825 +6

141 LIMITED BRANDS INC., Columbus, Ohio 5600 150.0 +295 -21 NA 373 -5

142 BUCKEYE PARTNERS, Emmaus, Pa. 4600 146.4 +73 6 -76 66 +10

143 STARBUCKS CORP., Seattle, Wash. 5800 145.5 +56 2 -16 68 +3

144 WHEELING PITTSBURGH CORP., Wheeling, W.Va. 3300 145.0 +136 0 -90 22 +0

145 MYLAN LABORATORIES INC., Canonsburg, Pa. 2800 144.4 +69 14 -49 175 +9

146 CONAGRA FOODS INC., Omaha, Neb. 2000 144.0 -28 -746 -1,334 3,770 -17

147 CIRCUIT CITY STORES INC., Richmond, Va. 5700 142.7 +109 -26 -128 260 -9

148 PPG INDUSTRIES INC., Pittsburgh, Pa. 2800 142.0 +29 -23 -166 1,201 -2

149 BORGWARNER INC., Auburn Hills, Mich. 3700 141.6 +37 86 +178 444 +24

150 CUMMINS INC., Columbus, Ind. 3500 137.0 +29 NA NA NA NA

151 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP., Falls Church, Va. 3700 137.0 +73 -17 -113 1,303 -1

152 TOWER AUTOMOTIVE INC., Novi, Mich. 3400 135.7 +32 -28 -122 374 -7

153 LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL INC., San Diego, Calif. 4800 134.9 +1,085 55 NM 655 +9

154 CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP., McLean, Va. 6100 134.5 +36 119 NM 723 +20

155 ALLIANT ENERGY CORP., Madison, Wis. 4900 134.3 -26 -625 -248 7,217 -8

156 ATMOS ENERGY CORP., Dallas, Texas 4900 133.9 +250 2,132 +1,289 4,766 +81

157 WINDSTREAM CORP., Little Rock, Ark. 4800 131.1 +37 8 NA 310 +3

158 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INC., Austin, Texas 3600 130.0 -24 -19 NM 998 -2

159 WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC., San Francisco, Calif. 5700 129.9 +53 NA NA NA NA

160 ALLEGHENY ENERGY INC., Greensburg, Pa. 4900 129.3 +26 142 NM 10,786 +1

Page 10: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 19

The Top OwnersCONST. IN PROGRESS BLDG. VALUE ADDED TOTAL BLDG. INVENTORY

FIRM TYPE 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG.RANK FIRM (SIC CODE) ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004

161 ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES INC., Sparks, Nev. 4900 128.3 +113 123 -17 709 +21

162 GANNETT CO., McLean, Va. 2700 125.7 +7 25 -77 1,520 +2

163 NII HOLDINGS INC., Reston, Va. 4800 125.5 +60 0 NM 0 NM

164 CARMAX INC., Richmond, Va. 5500 124.4 -37 98 +441 147 +199

165 SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING INC., McLean, Va. 8300 124.3 +82 13 NM 259 +5

166 MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, Raleigh, N.C. 1400 123.3 +105 3 -41 88 +3

167 ENERGY EAST CORP., New Gloucester, Maine 4900 119.5 +77 284 NM 8,548 +3

168 H&R BLOCK INC., Kansas City, Mo. 7200 118.7 NM -17 NM 50 -25

169 OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Toledo, Ohio 3200 116.7 -37 100 +483 1,045 +11

170 STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLD, White Plains, N.Y. 7000 116.0 -39 -2,871 -1,929 3,479 -45

171 HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., Hutchinson, Minn. 3600 113.9 +51 NA NA NA NA

172 AVERY DENNISON CORP., Pasadena, Calif. 2600 113.5 -19 -10 -119 623 -2

173 HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC., Milwaukee, Wis. 3700 113.5 -33 23 NM 379 +7

174 DIEBOLD INC., North Canton, Ohio 3500 113.0 +25 -18 -473 74 -19

175 MIRANT CORP., Atlanta, Ga. 4900 113.0 -11 -21 NM 7,536 +0

176 INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER CORP., El Segundo, Calif. 3600 112.2 +30 7 NM 122 +6

177 EMC CORP., Hopkinton, Mass. 3500 108.5 -30 43 +76 909 +5

178 IRON MOUNTAIN INC., Boston, Mass. 4200 106.3 +48 NA NA NA NA

179 CROWN HOLDINGS INC., Philadelphia, Pa. 3400 105.0 +81 -112 -333 749 -13

180 IAC/INTERACTIVECORP., New York, N.Y. 4700 104.1 +46 21 +93 187 +13

181 AMKOR TECHNOLOGY INC., West Chester, Pa. 3600 103.4 +0 22 -72 655 +3

182 AK STEEL HOLDING CORP., Middletown, Ohio 3300 102.8 -6 26 +253 355 +8

183 ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS INC., Princeton, N.J. 2800 102.6 -25 -134 NA 366 -27

184 OGE ENERGY CORP., Oklahoma City, Okla. 4900 102.2 -8 88 -78 6,162 +1

185 GREAT PLAINS ENERGY INC., Kansas City, Mo. 4900 101.0 +88 145 -11 5,204 +3

186 DARDEN RESTAURANTS INC., Orlando, Fla. 5800 100.9 -6 166 -1 2,472 +7

187 GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT CO., Nashville, Tenn. 7000 99.8 +398 26 -93 1,253 +2

188 AQUA AMERICA INC., Bryn Mawr, Pa. 4900 98.9 +55 274 -15 2,901 +10

189 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC., Lyndhurst, N.J. 8000 98.9 +128 53 +1,595 329 +19

190 VECTREN CORP., Evansville, Ind. 4900 97.3 -43 167 -22 3,632 +5

191 AMERICAN AXLE & MFG. HOLDINGS, Detroit, Mich. 3700 96.8 -33 41 +27 392 +12

192 TEXAS INDUSTRIES INC., Dallas, Texas 3200 95.1 +90 -59 NM 42 -58

193 CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP INC., Baltimore, Md. 4900 93.9 +13 88 -88 14,403 +1

194 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, Glenview, Ill. 3500 92.9 -21 -26 -127 1,210 -2

195 FORTUNE BRANDS INC., Deerfield, Ill. 3400 92.7 -13 140 NM 685 +26

196 DILLARDS INC., Little Rock, Ark. 5300 92.3 -5 37 -47 2,792 +1

197 WASHINGTON POST, Washington, D.C. 2700 91.4 +13 23 +47 328 +8

198 HARSCO CORP., Camp Hill, Pa. 3300 91.2 +102 -17 -322 169 -9

199 WALTER INDUSTRIES INC., Tampa, Fla. 9900 89.0 +352 54 NM 157 +52

200 MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC., Chandler, Ariz. 3600 87.3 +3 10 -84 366 +3

201 BRINKER INT’L INC., Dallas, Texas 5800 87.2 +20 216 +98 1,571 +16

202 ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS INC., Biloxi, Miss. 7900 87.1 -33 -101 -553 345 -23

203 APPLIED MATERIALS INC., Santa Clara, Calif. 3500 85.9 -8 54 NM 1,425 +4

204 MILLIPORE CORP., Billerica, Mass. 3800 85.1 +27 -1 -104 231 -1

205 NORDSTROM INC., Seattle, Wash. 5600 84.5 -7 -22 NM 797 -3

206 CROWLEY MARITIME CORP., Oakland, Calif. 4400 84.4 +303 18 +2,807 107 +20

207 GIANT INDUSTRIES INC., Scottsdale, Ariz. 2900 83.6 +560 11 +195 116 +10

208 EL PASO ELECTRIC CO., El Paso, Texas 4900 83.1 +11 79 +60 2,063 +4

209 XEROX CORP., Stamford, Conn. 3500 83.0 -14 -4 NM 1,163 +0

210 PENN NATIONAL GAMING INC., Wyomissing, Pa. 7900 83.0 +341 270 NM 700 +63

Page 11: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

20 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

The Top OwnersCONST. IN PROGRESS BLDG. VALUE ADDED TOTAL BLDG. INVENTORY

FIRM TYPE 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG.RANK FIRM (SIC CODE) ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004

211 VULCAN MATERIALS CO., Birmingham, Ala. 1400 82.7 +53 1 NM 83 +1

212 CEPHALON INC., Frazer, Pa. 2800 82.6 +32 34 -36 163 +27

213 SAKS INC., Birmingham, Ala. 5300 82.2 +50 -162 -3,344 878 -16

214 ARMSTRONG HOLDINGS INC., Lancaster, Pa. 3000 81.5 +5 -5 NM 648 -1

215 NIKE INC., Beaverton, Ore. 3000 81.4 +11 19 +82 843 +2

216 GAP INC., San Francisco, Calif. 5600 80.0 -65 NA NA NA NA

217 SONIC AUTOMOTIVE INC., Charlotte, N.C. 5500 79.5 +1,154 20 +56 102 +24

218 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH, New Albany, Ohio 5600 79.5 +186 6 +2,523 117 +6

219 INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, New York, N.Y. 2800 79.4 +17 12 NM 226 +6

220 PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS CO., Charlotte, N.C. 4900 79.3 +0 137 +60 2,612 +6

221 MCCORMICK & CO. INC., Sparks, Md. 2000 78.9 +10 6 -81 264 +2

222 LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS INC., Brentwood, Tenn. 8000 78.4 +61 607 +2,045 992 +157

223 TECUMSEH PRODUCTS CO., Tecumseh, Mich. 3500 78.2 +71 -14 NM 219 -6

224 CABELAS INC., Sidney, Neb. 5900 77.0 +59 74 NM 216 +52

225 MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC., New York, N.Y. 2800 75.9 -30 -4 -142 157 -2

226 FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INT’L, South Portland, Maine 3600 75.4 -31 8 -71 307 +3

227 AMERISTAR CASINOS INC., Las Vegas, Nev. 7900 75.2 +204 64 -36 1,015 +7

228 LUBRIZOL CORP., Wickliffe, Ohio 2900 75.1 -29 -38 -129 456 -8

229 RUBY TUESDAY INC., Maryville, Tenn. 5800 74.6 +0 57 -8 398 +17

230 SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES INT’L, Van Nuys, Calif. 3700 74.6 +298 NA NA NA NA

231 CONSTELLATION BRANDS, Fairport, N.Y. 2000 73.9 +16 6 -92 373 +2

232 MEMC ELECTRONIC MATRIALS INC., Saint Peters, Mo. 3600 73.3 +16 8 +127 126 +7

233 JABIL CIRCUIT INC., St. Petersburg, Fla. 3600 72.6 +4,118 11 -76 373 +3

234 CARBO CERAMICS INC., Irving, Texas 1400 72.1 +343 0 -75 15 +3

235 CORRECTIONS CORP. OF AMERICA, Nashville, Tenn. 8700 71.6 +5 76 -12 1,811 +4

236 NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., Santa Clara, Calif. 3600 71.6 +575 4 -81 544 +1

237 MOTIENT CORP., Lincolnshire, Ill. 4800 70.9 NM 0 NM 0 NM

238 MOLEX INC., Lisle, Ill. 3600 70.8 +7 -14 -150 534 -3

239 LEAR CORP., Southfield, Mich. 2500 70.5 +34 -759 -988 0 -100

240 ITT CORP., White Plains, N.Y. 3500 70.4 +1 -32 -151 495 -6

241 RITE AID CORP., Camp Hill, Pa. 5900 70.0 +101 -24 NM 604 -4

242 ARVINMERITOR INC., Troy, Mich. 3700 70.0 -11 -10 NM 437 -2

243 CORNELL COMPANIES INC., Houston, Texas 8300 69.7 +211 5 -62 180 +3

244 CLOROX CO., Oakland, Calif. 2800 69.0 +38 7 -63 487 +1

245 SONOCO PRODUCTS CO., Hartsville, S.C. 2600 68.9 -10 -8 -115 388 -2

246 OSI RESTAURANT PARTNERS INC., Tampa, Fla. 5800 68.9 +32 86 -2 690 +14

247 VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY INC., Malvern, Pa. 3600 67.2 -12 -22 -141 407 -5

248 WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORP., Parsippany, N.J. 6500 67.0 +26 14 NA 288 +5

249 SEALED AIR CORP., Saddle Brook, N.J. 2600 66.7 +43 -16 -141 509 -3

250 HORMEL FOODS CORP., Austin, Minn. 2000 66.3 +48 92 +380 548 +20

251 ORACLE CORP., Redwood City, Calif. 7300 66.0 NM 32 -83 1,274 +3

252 UIL HOLDINGS CORP., New Haven, Conn. 4900 65.5 +26 52 +193 890 +6

253 SEACOR HOLDINGS INC., Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 4400 65.2 +114 0 NM 0 NM

254 COVANCE INC., Princeton, N.J. 8700 64.4 +190 33 -23 292 +13

255 AVISTA CORP., Spokane, Wash. 4900 64.3 +25 194 +212 2,911 +7

256 TRINITY INDUSTRIES, Dallas, Texas 3700 64.0 +498 -26 NM 326 -7

257 PRIDE INTERNATIONAL INC., Houston, Texas 1300 63.3 +4 2 -28 43 +5

258 KING PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Bristol, Tenn. 2800 62.9 +18 13 +143 120 +12

259 HEXCEL CORP., Stamford, Conn. 2800 62.9 +114 -7 -178 154 -4

260 CHARLES RIVER LABS INTERNATIONAL INC., Wilmington, Mass. 8700 62.4 +66 26 -66 309 +9

Page 12: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 23

The Top OwnersCONST. IN PROGRESS BLDG. VALUE ADDED TOTAL BLDG. INVENTORY

FIRM TYPE 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG.RANK FIRM (SIC CODE) ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004

261 CHEMTURA CORP., Middlebury, Conn. 2800 62.4 +15 44 +1,053 284 +18

262 OLIN CORP., Clayton, Mo. 3300 62.2 +32 5 NM 225 +2

263 TEMPLE-INLAND INC., Austin, Texas 2600 62.0 -28 NA NA NA NA

264 ZIMMER HOLDINGS INC., Warsaw, Ind. 3800 61.4 +6 29 -62 707 +4

265 WESTAR ENERGY INC., Topeka, Kan. 4900 60.6 +6 156 +34 6,828 +2

266 SUPERVALU INC., Eden Prairie, Minn. 5400 60.1 +224 61 +441 1,176 +5

267 DUQUESNE LIGHT HOLDINGS INC., Pittsburgh, Pa. 4900 59.1 -13 105 +58 2,316 +5

268 ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., Redwood City, Calif. 7300 59.0 +37 21 NM 127 +20

269 PILGRIMS PRIDE CORP., Pittsburg, Texas 2000 58.9 +103 54 -89 1,613 +3

270 JO-ANN STORES INC., Hudson, Ohio 5900 57.9 +320 NA NA NA NA

271 JACK IN THE BOX INC., San Diego, Calif. 5800 57.4 +20 40 +20 680 +6

272 CINTAS CORP., Cincinnati, Ohio 2300 57.4 -21 8 -58 440 +2

273 MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORP., Columbia, Md. 2800 56.8 -45 16 -20 46 +55

274 FMC CORP., Philadelphia, Pa. 2800 56.7 +31 -8 -172 343 -2

275 SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORP., New York, N.Y. 3500 56.7 -7 NA NA NA NA

276 MANOR CARE INC., Toledo, Ohio 8000 56.6 +5 20 NM 1,652 +1

277 MGE ENERGY INC., Madison, Wis. 4900 56.2 -56 78 -11 1,060 +8

278 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO., Cleveland, Ohio 2800 55.7 +69 11 -70 474 +2

279 LODGIAN INC., Atlanta, Ga. 7000 55.1 +206 -8 -170 441 -2

280 SOUTHWEST GAS CORP., Las Vegas, Nev. 4900 54.3 +70 251 +1 3,573 +8

281 ADVO INC., Windsor, Conn. 7300 54.1 +13 NA NA NA NA

282 CYTEC INDUSTRIES INC., West Paterson, N.J. 2800 54.0 +22 78 +66 328 +31

283 NRG ENERGY INC., Princeton, N.J. 4900 54.0 +210 -151 NM 3,431 -4

284 COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS, Teaneck, N.J. 7300 53.8 +265 2 NM 20 +12

285 REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., Winston Salem, N.C. 2100 53.0 +36 10 -68 677 +1

286 POLYMER GROUP INC., North Charleston, S.C. 2200 52.2 +177 -3 -138 96 -3

287 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS INC., Saint Louis, Mo. 3600 52.0 -9 8 +58 199 +4

288 KINDRED HEALTHCARE INC., Louisville, Ky. 8000 50.8 +66 43 -5 398 +12

289 SOLUTIA INC., Saint Louis, Mo. 2800 50.0 +4 -3 -400 418 -1

290 COMMERCIAL METALS, Irving, Texas 5000 49.2 +127 NA NA 246 NA

291 SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP., Saint Louis, Mo. 2800 49.1 -31 58 +71 560 +12

292 PANERA BREAD CO., Richmond Heights, Mo. 5800 49.0 +34 0 NM 0 NM

293 WGL HOLDINGS INC., Washington, D.C. 4900 48.4 +34 116 +12 2,784 +4

294 ALBEMARLE CORP., Richmond, Va. 2800 47.8 +4 17 -59 167 +12

295 SILGAN HOLDINGS INC., Stamford, Conn. 3400 47.6 -14 4 NM 170 +2

296 CREE INC., Durham, N.C. 3600 47.1 +54 NA NA NA NA

297 LIFE TIME FITNESS INC., Eden Prairie, Minn. 7900 47.1 +48 122 +60 460 +36

298 PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., Portland, Ore. 3300 46.6 +59 6 NM 242 +2

299 ANNTAYLOR STORES CORP., New York, N.Y. 5600 46.5 -33 NA NA NA NA

300 MAVERICK TUBE CORP., Chesterfield, Mo. 3300 46.5 +130 22 +539 86 +33

301 GREAT WOLF RESORTS INC., Madison, Wis. 7000 46.4 -72 61 +13 150 +68

302 PETSMART INC., Phoenix, Ariz. 5900 46.1 +9 0 NM 9 +0

303 DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., Goodlettsville, Tenn. 5300 46.0 -38 48 NM 381 +14

304 WELLMAN INC., Fort Mill, S.C. 2800 45.8 +316 NA NA NA NA

305 UNITED NATURAL FOODS INC., Dayville, Conn. 5100 45.6 +2,462 2 -86 86 +2

306 ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE INC., Schaumburg, Ill. 2800 44.8 +19 7 -61 62 +13

307 HEALTHSOUTH CORP., Birmingham, Ala. 8000 44.5 +18 -121 NM 1,199 -9

308 MODINE MANUFACTURING CO., Racine, Wis. 3700 44.1 +36 -30 -155 264 -10

309 ROCKWELL COLLINS INC., Cedar Rapids, Iowa 3700 44.0 +13 17 +70 249 +7

310 INVITROGEN CORP., Carlsbad, Calif. 2800 43.9 +150 33 +547 163 +26

Page 13: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 25

The Top OwnersCONST. IN PROGRESS BLDG. VALUE ADDED TOTAL BLDG. INVENTORY

FIRM TYPE 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG.RANK FIRM (SIC CODE) ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004

311 OREGON STEEL MILLS INC., Portland, Ore. 3300 43.9 +197 3 +67 58 +5

312 BUCKEYE TECHNOLOGIES INC., Memphis, Tenn. 2600 43.5 +118 -7 NM 126 -5

313 DURA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, Rochester Hills, Mich. 3700 43.5 -1 NA NA NA NA

314 EVERGREEN SOLAR INC., Marlborough, Mass. 3600 43.2 +750 0 NM 0 NM

315 CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR HOLDINGS, San Antonio, Texas 7300 43.0 -20 NA NA NA NA

316 SAUER-DANFOSS INC., Lincolnshire, Ill. 3500 42.8 -19 8 +266 118 +7

317 NETWORK APPLIANCE INC., Sunnyvale, Calif. 3500 42.8 -18 65 +2,704 186 +53

318 PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP., Cleveland, Ohio 3400 42.5 -10 70 +121 1,026 +7

319 PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS INC., Lakeland, Fla. 5400 42.5 -42 5 NM 1,101 +0

320 AMERICAN STATES WATER CO., San Dimas, Calif. 4900 42.3 -39 67 -17 973 +7

321 VALERO, San Antonio, Texas 5100 42.1 +222 16 +10,809 26 +151

322 GENTEX CORP., Zeeland, Mich. 3700 40.9 +182 NA NA NA NA

323 LAUREATE EDUCATION INC., Baltimore, Md. 8200 40.9 +1,195 -10 -111 257 -4

324 CAREMARK RX INC., Nashville, Tenn. 5900 40.3 +192 10 -76 105 +10

325 LIVE NATION INC., Beverly Hills, Calif. 7900 39.9 +167 NA NA NA NA

326 INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, Reno, Nev. 3900 39.3 +52 12 +104 102 +14

327 URBAN OUTFITTERS INC., Philadelphia, Pa. 5600 39.2 +487 -2 -200 4 -33

328 MEDIA GENERAL, Richmond, Va. 2700 39.0 +194 2 NM 271 +1

329 FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, Matthews, N.C. 5300 38.9 -35 56 +2 446 +14

330 FMC TECHNOLOGIES INC., Houston, Texas 3500 38.7 +108 -4 -127 158 -2

331 WCI COMMUNITIES INC., Bonita Springs, Fla. 1500 38.7 +67 5 -75 84 +6

332 CH ENERGY GROUP INC., Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 4900 38.5 -1 52 +18 1,113 +5

333 GREIF INC., Delaware, Ohio 2600 38.2 +3 -3 -456 318 -1

334 HERCULES INC., Wilmington, Del. 2800 38.0 -46 -384 -2,123 1,614 -19

335 SPECTRUM BRANDS INC., Atlanta, Ga. 3600 37.9 +149 NA NA NA NA

336 BARR PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Woodcliff Lake, N.J. 2800 37.6 +92 0 -100 136 +0

337 EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC CO., Joplin, Mo. 4900 37.5 +333 64 +80 1,327 +5

338 VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, Costa Mesa, Calif. 2800 37.3 +123 -31 -2,071 147 -17

339 ANDRX CORP., Davie, Fla. 5100 37.3 -36 13 -68 94 +16

340 WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Corona, Calif. 2800 37.2 -61 35 +63 263 +15

341 BLACK HILLS CORP., Rapid City, S.D. 4900 37.0 +93 -13 -115 1,958 -1

342 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, Milwaukee, Wis. 3600 37.0 -15 7 NM 465 +1

343 SEQUA CORP., New York, N.Y. 3700 36.6 +79 1 NM 243 +1

344 CHEESECAKE FACTORY INC., Calabasas Hills, Calif. 5800 36.5 +18 0 -100 18 +0

345 PAYCHEX INC., Rochester, N.Y. 8700 36.4 +23 14 NM 80 +21

346 BORDERS GROUP INC., Ann Arbor, Mich. 5900 36.3 +42 0 NM 7 +3

347 GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD., Parma, Ohio 3600 35.8 -13 -5 -201 155 -3

348 W.R. GRACE & CO., Columbia, Md. 2800 35.6 +26 -14 -161 425 -3

349 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE GROUP, San Jose, Calif. 4900 35.4 +167 91 +40 1,235 +8

350 SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CO., Houston, Texas 4900 35.1 NA 481 +65 2,243 +27

351 CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORP., Houston, Texas 3500 35.1 +60 1 -97 220 +0

352 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS INC., Broomfield, Colo. 7300 35.0 -22 123 +224 1,688 +8

353 AQUILA INC., Kansas City, Mo. 4900 35.0 -74 -1,330 -1,091 3,176 -30

354 DEL MONTE FOODS CO., San Francisco, Calif. 2000 34.3 +32 -66 -582 314 -17

355 CBRL GROUP INC., Lebanon, Tenn. 5800 34.3 +19 47 +27 710 +7

356 EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES, Alpharetta, Ga. 3600 34.2 -4 -32 NM 233 -12

357 PACKAGING CORP. OF AMERICA, Lake Forest, Ill. 2600 34.1 -4 12 +55 327 +4

358 RELIANT ENERGY INC., Houston, Texas 4900 34.0 -41 -1,290 NM 7,113 -15

359 LANDRYS RESTAURANTS INC., Houston, Texas 5800 34.0 +110 205 +316 477 +75

360 MTR GAMING GROUP INC., Chester, W.Va. 7900 33.9 +236 6 -38 164 +4

Page 14: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

26 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

The Top OwnersCONST. IN PROGRESS BLDG. VALUE ADDED TOTAL BLDG. INVENTORY

FIRM TYPE 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG.RANK FIRM (SIC CODE) ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004

361 SUNPOWER CORP., Sunnyvale, Calif. 3600 33.7 +440 0 NM 0 NM

362 LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP., Nashville, Tenn. 2400 33.5 -20 4 NM 233 +2

363 DADE BEHRING HOLDINGS INC., Deerfield, Ill. 2800 33.4 +30 -9 -222 126 -7

364 LABORATORY CORP. OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Burlington, N.C. 8000 33.3 -24 1 +50 91 +1

365 CAMBREX CORP., East Rutherford, N.J. 2800 33.0 -24 6 -33 138 +4

366 ECOLAB INC., Saint Paul, Minn. 2800 32.4 -13 11 -64 283 +4

367 RARE HOSPITALITY INTERNATIONAL INC., Atlanta, Ga. 5800 32.3 +3 12 -5 80 +17

368 GEN-PROBE INC., San Diego, Calif. 2800 32.1 +266 -1 -1,893 40 -3

369 HILTON HOTELS CORP., Beverly Hills, Calif. 7000 32.0 +60 -641 -1,117 3,009 -18

370 DAVITA INC., El Segundo, Calif. 8000 31.7 +62 30 NM 35 +622

371 BIOSITE INC., San Diego, Calif. 2800 31.6 -45 57 NM 57 NM

372 STERIS CORP., Mentor, Ohio 3800 31.6 -15 -23 -219 173 -12

373 U.S. SHIPPING PARTNERS, Edison, N.J. 4400 31.5 +297 0 NM 0 NM

374 WEST PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES INC., Lionville, Pa. 3000 31.4 +38 8 -75 166 +5

375 PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT INC., Wilmington, N.C. 8700 31.2 +44 13 +220 58 +28

376 MCCLATCHY CO., Sacramento, Calif. 2700 31.1 +23 1 -87 238 +0

377 JONES APPAREL GROUP INC., Bristol, Pa. 2300 31.0 +167 NA NA NA NA

378 QUANEX CORP., Houston, Texas 3300 30.7 +226 11 +7 148 +8

379 GLOBAL PAYMENTS INC., Atlanta, Ga. 7300 30.4 +32 -11 -246 24 -30

380 HORNBECK OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., Covington, La. 4400 29.9 -44 0 NM 0 NM

381 ALLIANCE HOLDINGS GROUP, Tulsa, Okla. 1200 29.7 +221 12 NA 58 +25

382 FLOWERS FOODS INC., Thomasville, Ga. 2000 29.5 +233 93 +1,683 305 +44

383 DOLLAR TREE STORES INC., Chesapeake, Va. 5300 29.4 +44 -17 -126 155 -10

384 PAYLESS SHOESOURCE INC., Topeka, Kan. 5600 29.2 -47 13 NM 632 +2

385 RALCORP HOLDINGS INC., Saint Louis, Mo. 2000 29.1 +0 11 -12 108 +12

386 TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, New York, N.Y. 7900 29.0 +101 0 NM 5 +0

387 USEC INC., Bethesda, Md. 2800 29.0 +118 0 NM 0 NM

388 CHAPARRAL STEEL CO., Midlothian, Texas 3300 28.9 +3 1 NM 56 +1

389 NORTHWESTERN CORP., Sioux Falls, S.D. 4900 28.8 +112 73 +9 2,237 +3

390 BANDAG INC., Muscatine, Iowa 3000 28.7 +139 23 -44 170 +15

391 CDW CORP., Vernon Hills, Ill. 5900 28.1 +794 2 -14 35 +4

392 MANITOWOC CO., Manitowoc, Wis. 3500 28.1 +71 -5 NM 171 -3

393 SIRIUS SATELLITE RADIO INC., New York, N.Y. 4800 27.9 +494 0 NA 2 +10

394 WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES, Worthington, Ohio 3300 27.9 +54 2 -74 234 +1

395 GENITOPE CORP., Redwood City, Calif. 2800 27.6 NM 0 NM 0 NM

396 GOODMAN GLOBAL INC., Houston, Texas 3500 27.3 +255 2 NA 55 +4

397 GEORGIA GULF CORP., Atlanta, Ga. 2800 26.5 +58 0 NM 32 +0

398 OWENS & MINOR INC., Glen Allen, Va. 5000 26.4 +273 0 NM 0 NM

399 CARMIKE CINEMAS INC., Columbus, Ga. 7800 26.4 +34 167 +2,887 316 +111

400 BURGER KING HOLDINGS INC., Miami, Fla. 5800 26.0 -13 61 NA 470 +15

401 PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT INC., Las Vegas, Nev. 7900 25.9 -89 131 +381 514 +34

402 APPLEBEE’S INTERNATIONAL INC., Overland Park, Kan. 5800 25.8 +5 84 +52 478 +21

403 CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL INC., Philadelphia, Pa. 3000 25.2 +276 -1 NM 69 -1

404 AFFYMETRIX INC., Santa Clara, Calif. 3800 25.2 +49 14 +18 55 +33

405 FLUOR CORP., Aliso Viejo, Calif. 1600 25.2 +2,081 -8 NM 253 -3

406 GULFMARK OFFSHORE INC., Houston, Texas 4400 25.0 +36 0 NM 0 NM

407 KAISER ALUMINUM CORP., Foothill Ranch, Calif. 3300 25.0 +310 -1 NM 62 -2

408 ALLETE INC., Duluth, Minn. 4900 24.9 +117 9 NM 1,648 +1

409 LIBBEY INC., Toledo, Ohio 3200 24.6 +116 6 NM 51 +12

410 TREX CO. INC., Winchester, Va. 2400 24.6 -33 13 +2,106 49 +35

Page 15: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

28 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

The Top Owners

CONST. IN PROGRESS BLDG. VALUE ADDED TOTAL BLDG. INVENTORYFIRM TYPE 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG.

RANK FIRM (SIC CODE) ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004

411 DONALDSON CO. INC., Minneapolis, Minn. 3500 24.2 +26 6 -71 153 +4

412 HUBBELL INC., Orange, Conn. 3600 24.0 +135 3 NM 160 +2

413 HNI CORP., Muscatine, Iowa 2500 24.0 +75 6 -75 237 +2

414 SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, Portland, Ore. 5000 24.0 +41 2 NM 33 +7

415 GOLD KIST INC., Atlanta, Ga. 2000 23.9 +74 30 NM 243 +14

416 COMPLETE PRODUCTION SERVICES, Houston, Texas 1300 23.8 NM 0 NA 7 +3

417 ITC HOLDINGS CORP., Novi, Mich. 4900 23.6 +15 103 +51 1,018 +11

418 ALKERMES INC., Cambridge, Mass. 2800 23.6 +108 2 -47 21 +9

419 HERMAN MILLER INC., Zeeland, Mich. 2500 23.5 +64 7 +106 139 +5

420 RYAN’S RESTAURANT GROUP INC., Greer, S.C. 5800 23.4 -26 33 +6 514 +7

421 PARKER DRILLING CO., Houston, Texas 1300 23.2 +359 NA NA NA NA

422 GATEWAY INC., Irvine, Calif. 3500 23.1 +629 -18 NM 40 -31

423 ARROW INTERNATIONAL INC., Reading, Pa. 3800 23.0 +25 6 +72 98 +7

424 BROWN-FORMAN, Louisville, Ky. 2000 23.0 -12 -43 NM 297 -13

425 SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO CO., Marysville, Ohio 2800 23.0 +30 3 +367 131 +2

Page 16: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 31

distribution networks are changing.” In addition to ports in LosAngeles and San Diego, there is “big demand for distributioncenters” at ports in New York; New Jersey; Norfolk, Va.; and Jack-sonville, Fla., Rizzo says.

New warehouse and distribution center technologies, suchas greater reliance on automation and rack systems, and chang-ing warehouse specifications, are driving the need for construc-tion throughout the distribution sector. “A lot of companies areconsolidating their distribution facilities,” Rizzo says. “They willtake 50 buildings and consolidate them down to 30. They wantmuch larger warehouses than in the past. In 1999, the averagewarehouse we built was about 150,000 sq ft, now it’s 325,000 sqft. Warehouse heights used to be about 28 ft, now they are 32ft.”

“The distribution market is totally changing and has gottenvery sophisticated,” says Jim Heller, president and CEO of Min-neapolis-based developer Opus North. “The trend is to buildbigger, automated, more efficient buildings. Intermodal facili-ties have gotten to be a big trend.”

Many other developers’ capital outlays reflect the growingdemand for increasingly massive distribution facilities. RichardGatto, executive vice president at Chicago-based office andindustrial developer The Alter Group, points to projects suchas a 580,000-sq-ft warehouse building being planned for the162-acre Buckeye Logistics Center, Phoenix, and the develop-ment of the 590,000-sq-ft Calabash II distribution center,Fontana, Calif., as examples of the trend for bigger warehous-es. Gatto says the Inland Empire, located about 40 miles east ofLos Angeles, will continue to be a hot spot for distributionfacilities development because of its pivotal location in a trans-

Industrial, Office Markets Are StrongAs Residential, Retail Prospects DimDevelopers rush to fill demand in changing distribution sector

With development in some sectors beginning to cool,an increasingly globalized manufacturing market isstoking demand for construction of new warehous-es and office buildings as supply and distribution

chains evolve, developers say. Construction starts in warehouses, office buildings and man-

ufacturing facilities are expected to remain strong throughoutthe next year, while construction starts in the retail and residen-tial sectors will drop significantly, according to McGraw-HillConstruction Analytics. Developers attribute the cool down inresidential and retail markets to a glut of available space, as evi-denced by rising vacancy rates in many parts of the country. Andwhile demand this year for new retail space has driven an esti-mated $1 billion increase in construction over last year, devel-opers expect demand for new retail space to retreat next year.

Warehouse construction is one of the most active marketsfor developers, as global distribution redefines supply chainsand changes the way products are shipped around the world. Asmanufacturers increasingly are lured abroad, particularly toAsia, by promises of cheap labor and lower construction andoperating costs, ports on the West Coast, in turn, are seeing agrowing volume of products arriving from across the PacificOcean. The deluge of imported goods coming through ports inLos Angeles and San Diego is driving demand for distributionfacilities and warehouses both at the ports and at major transportintersections further inland. The same market dynamics areunfolding at ports on the East Coast.

In planning future developments, “One strategy is to focuson ports,” says Jack Rizzo, managing director of global develop-ment at Denver-based Prologis. “As manufacturers go overseas,

DevelopersBy Tom Nicholson

21

22

23

24

25

Retail Construction Starts

SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS

$ Bil.

2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected

SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS

9

10

11

12

13

Warehouse Construction Starts $ Bil.

2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected

SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS

15

20

25

30

35

Office Construction Starts $ Bil.

2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected

Page 17: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

32 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

lenges such as materials cost volatility and a labor shortage broughton by the rapidly expanding construction market. When thecost of construction fluctuates during a project, “contrators haveto absorb that,” says Khourie. “It used to be we could start con-struction before design work was complete. That way, we couldget to market faster. But there has been a huge construction costincrease in the last two years, and to eliminate [cost] surprises,we now wait until the design is finished before we start con-struction.”

Developers note that the “green” building trend is steadilymoving toward becoming a mainstream practice, and they aregrappling to integrate sustainable designs and building meth-ods, and the additional construction costs associated with them,into their operations and profit margins “There is a growingmovement for green building,” says Gatto. “But the jury is stillout on whether clients will pay higher rents for environmental-ly friendly buildings. It’s a pretty hard sell to corporate Ameri-ca to ask them to pay higher upfront costs to build green,” hesays. �

portation corridor within reach of Los Angeles’ seaport.It is not only manufacturers from abroad driving develop-

ment. With about 10 million sq ft of office and industrial devel-opment in the pipeline, Rizzo says Prologis is filling a void leftby lagging business from the domestic automobile market thisyear by focusing on development projects elsewhere in thedomestic manufacturing and distribution sectors.

“The auto market is down,” Rizzo says. “In the past, we didseveral projects for Ford and General Motors, but there havebeen no requests for construction from them in the last 12 to18 months.” But manufacturers of drugs, and food and bever-age products are clamoring for new facilities, he says. Prologishas development projects for Coors, in Denver, and Kellogg’s,in Chicago, both under way and being planned.

Shifting SectorAlong with active manufacturing markets is a burgeoning needfor office space, many developers say. At Dallas-based develop-er Trammel Crow Co., about $2.7 billion of development is invarious stages of planning and design, says Matt Khourie, thefirm’s central region president for development and investment.“We are very active in all commercial sectors, but most of ourfuture work is heavily weighted to offices, it’s the most activesector,” he says. “This is the largest amount of activity we haveseen in 10 years.” Trammell Crow has six planned office proj-ects located in the Southwest that will begin in the next sixmonths, Khourie says. The skyrocketing office market “is abyproduct of activity of the other commercial sectors,” he says.“Vacancy rates are down [and] there is a need for new productin that market.”

After several years of slowed growth, the office market hasremerged as a hot sector, particularly in the Southwest.“Phoenix is one the biggest drivers for office work because ofthe big population and job growth there,” Gatto says. “I can’tpoint to any other city so active.” The Alter Group has fiveoffice projects currently under way in Phoenix, with plans forfuture development throughout the region. “We expect it toremain an active region for another five to seven years,” he says.

But amid the boom, developers are having to react to chal-

Developers

SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS

6

8

10

12

14

Manufacturing Construction Starts $ Bil.

2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected

SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS

240

260

280

300

320

Single-Family Construction Starts $ Bil.

2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected

SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS

64

66

68

70

72

Multi-Family Construction Starts $ Bil.

2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected

Page 18: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

Despite Soaring Materials Costs,The Industry Remains Optimistic Public-private partnerships and other innovations plug funding gaps

state, other projects are in jeopardy. Costs are rising, fuel taxrevenue is flat and state legislators are not finding new solutions.Ekern says that during reviews of the state’s six-year plan, offi-cials are scrambling to find ways to preserve the projects on itslists. “We’re buffering for which projects we will have to elim-inate from the program,” he says.

Given the current environment, Ekern says the future out-look looks bleak for many states. “From a professional stand-point and living within this business for 40 years, I don’t recalla time when the threat has been as real as it is now in terms ofwhat we’ll be able to deliver to the public,” he says.

Texas is another state that has greatly expanded its financingalternatives to get projects done. The state is eyeing multiplepublic private partnerships (PPPs), including several in the Dal-las-Fort Worth area. This spring, the state expects to select adeveloper on a major project on SH 121 in Denton and Collincounties. Also in 2007, TxDOT expects to sign with privateinvestors on the SH 161 project and the Interstate 635/LBJFreeway project, both in Dallas County.

Beyond PPPs, the state has been able to improve its high-way funding in recent years, increasing its lettings from $4.5 bil-lion in 2005 to $5.4 billion in 2006. But much of that increasewas due to inflation, according to Amadeo Saenz, assistant exec-utive director of engineering operations at TxDOT. In 2007,lettings will drop to $5 billion as costs begin to level, he says.

Indiana is reaping the benefits of the 75-year lease of theIndiana Toll Road this spring. Indiana received $3.8 billion inthe deal with the Spanish-Australian partnership of Cintra Mac-quarie. The money is fueling the state’s new Major Moves pro-gram, which calls for more than 200 new construction projectsand 200 preservation projects through 2015.

Among the work generated by Major Moves is the recently-awarded $175-million Super 70 project, which will reconstruct75 lane miles of I-70 near Indianapolis. Other mega projects tobe let include $1 billion of work on three sections of U.S. 31between Indianapolis and South Bend. The state also recentlyscrapped its plans to seek a private developer for its $2-billionI-69 project from Evansville to Indianapolis and will insteadlook to incorporate the project into its Major Moves program.

Florida is doing its part to wean itself of dependence on fed-eral funding. The state program received a shot in the arm in2005, when the state legislature increased transportation fund-ing by $800 million annually. That was a big step forward, butrevenue recently retreated. Lowell Clary, assistant secretary of

On paper, it has been a banner year for transportation.Estimates suggest that 2006 saw record lettings by dol-lar value from states’ departments of transportation—and another record year could follow in 2007. But the

healthy flow of funds for projects this year belies the dilemmafaced by state and local authorities as they look to get projectsmoving in the future amid rising costs for construction.

According to estimates from the American Road & Trans-portation Builders Association, Washington, D.C., the value ofconstruction work performed on transportation projects in2006 hit $105 billion, a 15% increase over 2005. If currentappropriations make it through Congress, the industry couldsee another 10% growth in 2007.

But materials costs are a big contributor to those rising con-tract values. ARTBA estimates that nearly half of the 2006increase can be attributed to escalations in costs, meaning realgrowth was actually only 7.5%.

The recent spike in funding comes as funds from the high-way authorization bill, SAFETEA-LU, are starting to flow throughthe pipeline. But as transportation authorities begin to look atthe next authorization bill, the picture appears less promising.Without increases in the fuel tax or other methods, the revenuestream coming into the federal Highway Trust Fund will not beenough to support the program past 2009, says Matt Jeanneret,spokesman for ARTBA “Since it’s not sufficient, [Congress] eitherneeds to cut investment levels or try to find other ways to bol-ster revenue in the future,” he says.

Grappling with OptionsVirginia is among the states grappling with both current andfuture funding concerns. The state has been at the forefront ofefforts to expand its financing alternatives, particularly throughpublic-private partnerships. “The governor’s view and my viewis that in the 21st century, the Dept. of Transportation has tohave all the tools available to get projects done,” says VirginiaTransportation Secretary David Ekern.

In October, VDOT entered into an interim agreement withFluor-Transurban to create 28 miles of high-occupancy toll(HOT) lanes on I-95 and I-395. The state also is reviewing pro-posals for its U.S. Route 460 corridor project, which would cre-ate a 55-mile, four-lane, divided, limited-access highway fromI-295 in Prince George County to the Suffolk Bypass.

But while private investors are taking on mega projects in the

By Bruce Buckley

Highway/Transit

Page 19: Top Owners Sourcebook

$1 - $4 bil.$900 mil. to $999 mil.$700 mil. - $899 mil.$500 mil. - $699 mil.$300 mil. - $499 mil.$100 mil. - $299 mil.% = percent change from 2006

R.I.$203 mil. 1.4%

Maine$190 mil.

1.8%

N.H.$169 mil. 0.8% Mass.

$613 mil. 0.8%

Vt.$175 mil.

1.8%

Conn.$496 mil. 0.8%

Washington D.C.$152 mil. 1.5%

Del.$159 mil. 5.4%

N.J.$943 mil. 5.1%

Md.$584 mil. 5.1%

N.Y.$1.68 bil.

0.8%

Pa.$1.65 bil.

0.8%Ohio$1.33 bil.

8.7%Ill.

$1.27 bil. 11.5%

Ga.$1.27 bil.

4.9%

Fla.$8.68 bil

33.2%

Fla.$8.68 bil

33.2%

Fla.

33.2%

Fla.$1.74 bil.

5.2%

Fla.$1.74 bil.

5.2%

Texas$2.90 bil.

5.2%

Calif.$3.46 bil.

6.8% Va.$947 mil.

6.7%

N.C.$1.03 bil.

6.6%

W.Va.$407 mil.

5.4%

S.C.$584 mil.

5.0%

Ky.$637 mil.

5.4%

Tenn.$798 mil.

4.9%

Ala.$733 mil.

5.4%

Ind.$904 mil.

8.5%

Mich.$1.14 bil.

7.5%

Wis.$717 mil.

5.4%

Miss.$452 mil.

5.4%La.$584 mil.

5.4%

Ark.$480 mil.

30.3%

Mo.$868 mil.

5.4%

Iowa$411 mil.

3.8%

Minn.$629 mil.

16.7%

N.D.$236 mil.

5.4%

S.D.$262 mil.

5.4%

Kan.$382 mil.

0.8%

Colo.$500 mil.

8.9%

Okla.$559 mil.

4.7%

Neb.$280 mil.

5.4%

Wyo.$251 mil.

5.4%

Mont.$358 mil.

5.4%

Idaho$279 mil.

5.4%

Wash.$627 mil.

5.7%

Ore.$446 mil.

5.4%

Nev.$261 mil.

5.4% Utah$283 mil.

5.4%

Ariz.$654 mil.

5.6%N.M.

$355 mil. 5.4%

Hawaii$169 mil.

0.8%

Alaska$429 mil.

5.4%

SOURCE: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Projected 2007 Federal Highway Funding

Public TransitWhile California’s highway program is getting a boost, so is thepublic transportation sector. Proposition 1B provides $4 billionfor public transit. And California is not alone. ARTBA Presi-dent William Millar says he is encouraged by the response totransit issues on the state and federal levels. In keeping withrecent trends, voters approved many ballot initiatives to fundpublic projects. “This continues a trend over the last severalyears where voters are approving raising state and local moneyfor public transportation at a rate of over 70%,” he says.

Action in the nation’s capital has been positive as well. Mil-lar notes the push by the Federal Transit Administration on sev-eral full-funding grant agreements for major projects this year,including nearly 40% of the $6.3-billion East Side Access proj-ect in New York City, 80% of the $435-million expansion of the

finance and administration at FDOT, says the state this summersaw gas consumption drop for the first time, eating into its fueltax revenue. Drivers also are buying lighter vehicles, whichmeans weight-based vehicle registration fees are dropping.

While FDOT sorts through its state funding, it also is look-ing at PPPs to handle major projects. The state is working onits first design-build-operate-and-maintain contract on the$1.2-billion Port of Miami Tunnel project. It also is pursuing aPPP on the $469-million I-75 project in Collier and Lee coun-ties. Looking farther into the future, the state has been study-ing potential new corridors this year, including redeveloping I-4 as well as new greenfield projects.

While many states are experimenting with PPPs, Californiacontinues to keep its business in-house. The California Dept.of Transportation received a big boost in November when vot-ers approved $19.9 billion in transportation funding underProposition 1B. “Voters realize that they aren’t getting to workon time, commutes are taking longer and our infrastructure isaging,” says Randall Iwasaki, chief deputy director of Caltrans.The state is trying out new revenue tools, but is not looking forconcession deals, Iwasaki says. The state has enabling legislationfor three HOT lane demonstration projects around the state,but those will remain under state control, he says.

ENR

enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 37

Fair Share. States will see a rise in federal transportation allocations next year, but it’s partly a reflection of rising construction costs.MAP

BY

NAN

CY S

OUL

LIAR

D F

OR

ENR

“[Congress] either needs to cutinvestment levels or try to findother ways to bolster revenue.”— MATT JEANNERET, AMERICAN ROAD & TRANSPORTATION

BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Page 20: Top Owners Sourcebook

North Shore LRT Connector near Pittsburgh and $700 millionfor the 21-mile Northwest/Southwest Connector in Dallas. “Itwould appear that the committee chairs understand the impor-tance of infrastructure funding generally,” he says.

Millar says he also hopes to see increased funding for home-land security upgrades on transit projects. While billions of dol-lars have been spent on airline security since Sept. 11, 2001,public transit has been significantly less. In the fall, Congressapproved additional funding for transit security, raising the lev-el from $150 million to $175 million, Millar notes.

Transit work is so hot in the New York City area thatobservers question if there will be enough contractors to han-dle it. The city’s Metropolitan Transit Authority is preparing tokick off three major projects in the near future, including thenew $16 billion 8.1-mile Second Avenue subway line, the $2 bil-lion extension of the No. 7 subway line and the East Side Accessproject for the Long Island Railroad. “We’re seeing an unprece-dented amount of construction in terms of contracts recentlyawarded and the anticipated awards in 2007,” says Ronnie Hakim,general counsel of MTA’s Capital Construction Co.

Even as contractors line up for MTA work, other majortransit projects lie on the horizon such as New Jersey Transit’s$7.2-billion 8-mile Trans-Hudson Express Tunnel that wouldextend under the Hudson River and provide New Jersey andNew York City with another rail link.

MTA Capital Construction President Mysore Nagaraja haslaunched a rigorous industry outreach to make sure the workforce is in place to execute the work. MTA has even brought ininternational firms, inking a deal with the Spanish firm Draga-dos for tunneling work on the East Side Access project. “Bring-ing in additional resources to team with the local contractorswill be key to meeting all of our contract needs,” Hakim says.

Freight work also is receiving significant federal attention.The Dept. of Homeland Security is looking at ways to reroutepotentially-hazardous rail freight outside of major cities, includ-ing a study under way to create a new route around Washing-ton, D.C.

In September, Norfolk Southern, the Federal HighwayAdministration, Virginia, West Virginia and Ohio partnered forthe new Heartland Corridor. The $251-million project wouldinclude raising clearances in 28 tunnels to accommodate dou-ble-stack cargo containers. “It was critical to have federalfunds,” says Robin Chapman, spokesman for Norfolk Southern.“We couldn’t have justified doing this on our own. There’sgrowing recognition in the public sector that PPPs can getthings done that otherwise couldn’t get done.” �

ENR

38 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

Highway/Transit

“Voters realize that they aren’tgetting to work on time...andour infrastructure is aging.”

— RANDALL IWASAKI, CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA

DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

Page 21: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 41

placed within a new terminal, and how efficiently they can runoperations alongside other terminal activities.

As part of a $3.1-billion capital development program, SteveWareham, director of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Air-port, “deputized” airport foremen with electrician, plumbingand carpenter expertise to act as quality assurance inspectors onprojects, rather than hiring an outside inspection firm. “I don’thave a hard figure for what we saved in dollars, but we saved theneed for extra staffing,” he says.

Sam Sleiman, director of capital programs at Boston’s LoganAirport, said new legislation had to be passed to allow the air-port to do CM at-risk projects. He suggests a federal bill thatcould give airports regulatory power, overriding municipalrestrictions on issues like project delivery methods. Charlie Is-dell, director of Philadelphia International Airport, noted thatU.S. Airways built a new 800,000-sq-ft terminal in 2003 usingdesign-build, and didn’t have to comply with city regulations.

It all comes down to cutting costs and increasing efficiency.“Money is the number one concern,” said Ali Dib, director offacilities and infrastructure management at Wayne County Air-port Authority, which operates Detroit International Airport.“Our facilities were built pre-9/11; our infrastructure is aging.There’s the technology challenge. How do we keep up? Webuilt a new terminal six years ago; it was state of the art. Nowit is not.”

As a result, long-range planning and flexibility is a necessityfor new capital programs. “We’re short-sighted. We built fortoday, but not for 40 years hence,” said Alan Stevens, projectexecutive with Turner Construction, New York City. “Flexibil-ity is needed, but it costs money.”

Money MattersSo where will the money come from? The federal 2007 budgetprovides $13.7 billion for airports from a combination of trustfund and general fund revenue. That includes $2.8 billion forAirport Improvement Program (AIP) grants—a $765-millionreduction from the previous budget. Nobody has a certainanswer beyond “wait and see,” but everyone knows continuingsecurity-related work will require more money than ever. “Weknow it can be a hard sell,” said Bob Cammaroto, chief of com-mercial airports for the Transportation Security Administra-tion. “We know [airports] are in a tough position.” He notesthat a planned next-generation transportation system, with a2025 goal, will likely involve Internet-centric operations, satel-

Airport Consultants and BuildersKey on Better Communication Early involvement in planning projects is needed more than ever

The more aviation construction issues change, the morethey stay the same. Airport officials are flying into anuncertain future where fundamental issues of construc-tion, congestion, security, safety and technology are

constant but their parameters are ever-changing. “Every fiveyears is like a new era in the business,” says Angela Gittens, vicepresident for airport business with HNTB Corp., Kansas City.

Airports are taking a wait-and-see approach on security andfunding. Cargo security requirements are still pending, and every-one is waiting to see what happens to aviation funding next yearunder the new Democrat-controlled Congress. What airportofficials can start doing now is to take a systematic, big-pictureapproach and look to alternative methods in building both rev-enue and infrastructure with maximum efficiency and mini-mum costs.

Almost 30 aviation experts — airport officials, vendors, con-sultants and contractors—discussed these issues with editors ofENR and Aviation Week in an Oct. 5 roundtable. “We consis-tently heard that there was a need for improved communica-tion” across disciplines and administrative responsibilities, saysWilliam Fife, corporate vice president with the New York Cityoffice of DMJM+Harris, who moderated the roundtable. “Itwas clear that often people pay lip service to communication.”

Steven Pressler, executive vice president with Skanska USABuilding Inc., told airport owners that it was critical to “involveconstruction professionals as early in the [design and construc-tion] process as possible.” Skanska prefers contracting methodslike CM at-risk or design-build, because “what we find is thatthe methods are fairer to the contractor,” he said. The methodalso emphasizes client-contractor relationships rather than theproject itself, he added.

Skanska currently has two CM at-risk jobs, including a $50-million contract to build an in-line screening baggage system atRhode Island’s T.F. Green Airport and a $20-million system inFort Lauderdale. Engineers anticipate that a major portion ofupcoming work will be in retrofits of terminals for security andtechnology needs, including in-line baggage screening, com-mon-use facilities and systems integration.

Early involvement must extend to vendors and suppliers,too. “Consultants often don’t involve vendors in airport design,”said Joseph DiDomizio, COO of the Hudson Group. “I’d sug-gest that if your goal is to enhance revenue, then involve theconcessionaires in design and development.” Doing so will en-sure maximum revenue based on how services and stores are

AirportsBy Aileen Cho

Page 22: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

42 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

Plavin. He suggests airports should not fear passing on addi-tional infrastructure costs to the users.

Utilizing the private sector for alternative sources of revenueis one option. For example, Ricky Smith, director of ClevelandHopkins International Airport, said the airport plans to contractout taxicab service to a single provider by year’s end. At Detroit’sairport, officials received seven proposals from advertisers tosponsor segments of the airport. Airports are looking for extrafunds anywhere they can find them. �

lite-based systems and tracking of aircraft. All these will affectairport configurations.

Aviation officials hope that Congress next year will vote onlegislation that would allow them to raise passenger facilitycharges beyond its current cap of $4.50. “U.S. airports want totake a page from Canada’s book and are asking why there is acap on PFCs,” said David Plavin, former president of AirportsCouncil International-North America.

Raising PFCs also raises the issue of airline relationships.For example, “We would not have been able to build new gatesfor new carriers if U.S. Airways had had control of our PFCmoney,” Isdell said. A new $1-billion terminal design unveiledby Sacramento International Airport in mid-November willdepend heavily on increased user fees.

Relationships with municipalities pose challenges as well.For example, bids for airport work were set for summer letting,but are still on hold while local governments review whetherthey meet Disadvantage Business Enterprise requirements, saidIsdell. The longer the wait, the harder it is for a contractor tohold to its original bid price, adds Turner’s Stevens. He point-ed out that escalation in construction materials alone can meana at least a 12% increase in contract costs a year.

Despite all the competing stakeholder interests and uncer-tainties, the bottom line depends on airports acting like busi-nesses, roundtable members concurred. Grants will never beenough. “We’ve got to focus on the private sector role,” said

Airports

The Top Airport Construction Programs

1 WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL, D.C. 49.2 132.0 4.3 244.8 91.1 521.5

2 MIAMI INTERNATIONAL, Fla. 25.0 442.9 2.1 1.1 9.6 480.7

3 DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL, Texas 23.7 219.3 12.6 34.7 184.0 474.3

4 SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL, Wash. 217.2 167.7 6.0 2.3 20.0 413.3

5 MC CARRAN INTERNATIONAL, Nev. 93.4 208.7 0.0 8.1 86.0 396.2

6 PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL, Ariz. 64.2 102.3 74.7 1.5 143.5 386.2

7 CHICAGO O’HARE INTERNATIONAL, Ill. 22.7 192.3 0.7 1.4 143.3 359.1

8 HARTSFIELD JACKSON ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL, Ga. 136.2 71.0 0.0 13.3 95.4 316.0

9 GENERAL EDWARD LAWRENCE LOGAN, Mass. 68.1 47.3 75.2 67.0 9.9 267.5

10 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL, N.Y. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 267.5 267.5

11 GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINENTAL, Texas 19.3 136.8 1.9 4.9 44.1 207.1

12 LAMBERT-ST LOUIS INTERNATIONAL, Mo. 173.2 7.7 3.1 0.0 0.0 184.0

13 MINNEAPOLIS-ST PAUL INTERNATIONAL, Minn. 104.7 35.4 1.2 5.8 19.9 166.9

14 TAMPA INTERNATIONAL, Fla. 8.8 69.6 57.9 7.0 15.7 159.0

15 LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL, Calif. 104.2 30.1 0.0 3.0 5.1 142.4

16 INDIANAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL, Ind. 89.3 8.3 1.9 0.0 29.3 128.7

17 DETROIT METRO WAYNE, Mich. 5.2 101.0 1.6 0.1 17.5 125.4

18 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL, Fla. 1.9 109.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 112.0

19 NEWARK INTERNATIONAL, N.J. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.4 105.4

20 OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL, Calif. 18.6 59.3 5.7 4.9 4.9 93.5

21 FORT LAUDERDALE/ HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL, Fla. 15.9 22.0 38.4 2.7 10.6 89.5

22 ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL, Alaska 25.5 42.2 3.2 0.2 11.2 82.3

23 NEW ORLEANS INTERNATIONAL, La. 74.1 2.2 0.0 0.1 4.5 81.0

24 LAGUARDIA, N.Y. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.4 77.4

25 CINCINNATI/NORTHERN KENTUCKY, Ky. 61.2 2.1 0.6 0.9 10.2 75.0

*Based on FY2005 spending reported to the Federal Aviatin Administration.

ROADWAYS,RAIL AND

RANK AIRPORT AIRFIELD TERMINAL PARKING TRANSIT OTHER TOTAL

SPENDING IN $ MILLIONS

Page 23: Top Owners Sourcebook

Water/Wastewater

Water Services. One plan is to raise the 151-ft-high earthfill dam’sheight by 40 ft and build a raw-water pipeline, VanderPlaat says.Another option is to raise the dam height by 25 ft and expandcapacity of the Willamette River water treatment plant.

Those options will be compared to a “no-action” alternativein a draft environmental impact statement to be submitted inearly 2007, says VanderPlaat. The Bureau of Reclamation andlocal water suppliers will select a plan by late 2007. Final designof the selected option is expected to continue into 2009. Con-struction would begin in 2010 or 2011, and take about four yearsto finish.

In other regions, water suppliers see groundwater pumpingand desalination as the answer to rising demand. In California,the Santa Cruz Water Dept. is about to start building a $4-mil-lion, 72,000-gallon-per-day desalination pilot plant that couldlead to construction of a full-scale, $40-million plant as soon as2009. In Monterey County, Calif., water supplier AmericanWater is seeking state approval for a 200,000-gallon per day de-salination pilot plant. Desalination is not just a California phe-nomenon. Officials in Brockton, Mass. plan to build in 2007 a$60-million plant to treat brackish tidal water from the TauntonRiver.

In Arizona, the city of Prescott and the town of Prescott Val-ley expect to meet growing water needs by pumping up to 17million gallons per day of groundwater from beneath a 4,600-acre ranch that the municipalities purchased. Water will be dis-tributed via a planned 30-mile pipeline with 36-in. and 30-in.-dia pipe. Construction of the $170-million project is expectedto begin in 2007 for completion by 2009. In Maryland, a newstate law is providing more than $55 million annually for en-hanced nutrient removal technologies to be added to 66 large,publicly owned wastewater treatment plants by 2011, says JulyOberg, spokeswoman for the Maryland Dept. of the Environ-ment. Aimed at reducing contaminents in the Chesapeake Bay,the plants will reduce release of nitrogen to less than 3 mil-ligrams per liter, and phosphorus to less than 0.3 milligrams perliter.

Population growth has four North Carolina towns jointlyplanning a new wastewater treatment plant. The $250-million,24-mgd first phase of the project planned by the towns of Apex,Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville will be completed by 2011,while a planned $120-million, 14-mgd expansion is scheduledto be built by 2030.

Population Growth Drives Rising TideOf Water and Wastewater Projects Utility owners look to alternative supply methods in some regions

Population growth, stricter environmental rules andcrumbling infrastructure are leading public and privateentities to plan, design and build scores of major water-supply and wastewater-treatment facilities. Unlike some

other market segments where projects often are delayed or stretchedout due to budget concerns, water and wastewater project own-ers typically have been able to secure most, if not all, of thefunding they need to undertake critical projects in a timely fash-ion.

Some of the greatest needs of water and wastewater author-ities and companies are in the fastest-growing parts of the U.S.In east-central Florida, for example, six water suppliers and twowater management districts are developing plans for a signifi-cant expansion of the Taylor Creek Reservoir in Osceola andOrange counties, southeast of Orlando. The project, now in thepreliminary design and permitting stage, calls for increasing dai-ly water withdrawals from an existing reservoir serving the cityof Cocoa from the current 10 million gallons per day tobetween 25 million to 40 million gallons per day.

Malissa Dillon, project manager at the St. John’s RiverWater Management District (SJRWMD)—one of the projectparticipants—says the increase would be accomplished bydiverting water from the nearby St. John’s River during periodsof moderate and high flow into the reservoir. In addition todiversion facilities such as a water pipeline and pumping stationto deliver the river water to the reservoir, the project willinclude one or more conventional surface-water treatmentplants, as well as new and upgraded pipelines to transmit thetreated water to the participating water suppliers. Those sup-pliers include the city of Titusville, Orange County, OrlandoUtilities Commission, Tohopekaliga Water Authority and EastCentral Florida Services. The South Florida Water Manage-ment District also is involved.

The project will begin in 2010, be completed by 2013 andcost between $133 million and $215 million, Dillon says. It isthe largest of several dozen projects under development in theregion. “Most involve the use of reclaimed water or brackishwater,” Dillon says.

Another area where population growth is pressuring watersupply is Oregon’s Tualatin Valley. Water suppliers there aremulling plans to raise the height of Scoggins Dam at HaggLake, a major reservoir in the region, says Tom VanderPlaat,project manager at Hillsboro, Ore.-based water supplier Clean

By Housley Carr

ENR

44 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

Page 24: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 45

New York City has many water and wastewater projectseither in the pipeline or under way. Large projects now underway include the Third Water Tunnel megaproject and upgradesto the 310-mgd Newtown Creek wastewater treatment plant inBrooklyn, and a planned $1.1-billion subterranean water-filtra-tion plant to be built beneath Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx.

The Third Water Tunnel project is the largest capital con-struction project in New York City history. The tunnel is beingbored in bedrock 250 ft to 800 ft below the surface. Beginningin Yonkers, north of the Bronx, the tunnel will eventually con-nect to Queens when complete in 2020. �

Page 25: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 49

Internet access, overhead digital projection technology and“smart slate” capability.

SDUSD currently has 161 schools and 132,000 students andis in the process of revising its long-range facilities master plan,says Umstot. While the final numbers are not in, the districtmost likely would need $2.5 billion to $3 billion to address itspresent needs, he says.

But due to voter concern about taxes, SDUSD may well seekapproval to sell only about $1 billion in general obligation bondswhen the next school bond issue goes before voters, probablyin 2008, Umstot says. The lower amount means it will take con-

siderably longer than the district would like to complete schoolupgrades and other projects.

SDUSD now is close to completing a long list of projectsfunded by a $1.51-billion school construction bond issueapproved by district voters in 1998, and by some $325 millionin state support. “We’ve spent about $1 billion on school reno-vation work, $600 million on new schools and $200 million inongoing major repairs” over the past eight years, Umstot says.

All California school districts will benefit from the approvalof Proposition 1D by state voters in November. Proposition 1Dwill provide a total of $10.4 billion in state funding for educa-

Changing Technology, Demographics Steer Capital Spending for SchoolsK-12 schools focus on upgrades, while colleges prepare for influx

Demographic trends are leading school districts, even infaster-growing parts of the U.S., to shift an increasingshare of their capital spending toward upgrades andexpansions of existing elementary, middle and high

schools, and away from building entirely new facilities. At thesame time, colleges and universities continue to construct newdormitories, academic buildings, recreation space and sportsvenues in anticipation of still-higher enrollments in the nextdecade.

School-district officials and facilities-planning executives atinstitutions of higher learning indicate that spending on K-12and college and university buildings will remain at ornear historically high levels over the next several years,providing significant opportunities for architects, engi-neers, construction managers and contractors.

K-12 school construction has been on a roll since the1990s as millions of Generation Y students moved theirway through the educational system, and as suburbanand exurban areas flourished. Many larger districts found them-selves having to build one or more schools a year just to keeppace.

Student enrollment levels now are flattening out, but theneed for more flexible classroom space and technological andother improvements remains great, says David Umstot, inter-im chief facilities officer at the San Diego Unified School Dis-trict (SDUSD). “Most of our schools were built in the 1950sand 1960s,” Umstot says. Even with some expansions andimprovements in the intervening years, many need to beupgraded again to provide for 21st Century needs: wide-pipe

EducationBy Housley Carr

The Top 10 K-12 Construction Projects in Planning Phase

1 FRISCO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Frisco, Texas Multiple Projects 798.0

2 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, San Francisco, Calif. Renovation/Addition 450.0

3 RACINE SCHOOLS, Racine, Wis. Multiple Projects 375.0

4 WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOLS, Reno, Nev. Multiple Projects 250.0 to 300.0

5 BIRMINGHAM CITY SCHOOLS, Birmingham, Ala. Renovation/Addition 283.0

6 BLUE VALLEY SCHOOLS, Overland Park, Kan. Renovation/Addition 280.0

7 RICHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT, Columbia, S.C. Multiple Projects 277.0

8 CENTRAL LOS ANGELES NEW LEARNING CENTER, Los Angeles, Calif. K-12 School 270.0

9 HORRY COUNTY SCHOOLS, Abbeville, S.C. Multiple Projects 255.0

10 WINSTON SALEM/FORSYTH COUNTY SCHOOLS, Forsyth County, N.C. Renovation/Addition 250.0

*Based on construction value as reported by McGraw-Hill Construction Research and Analytics.

VALUERANK* PROJECT SCOPE ($ MIL.)

The need for more flexible classroomspace remains great.

— DAVID UMSTOT, INTERIM CHIEF FACILITIES OFFICER, SAN DIEGO

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Page 26: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

50 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

Worrisome CostsThe cost of performing construction has now become thebiggest concern as school officials plan future projects. Volatil-ity of prices for construction materials is a wild card that schoolofficials around the country cannot afford to turn up midwayinto a project. Sleeper acknowledges that he is concerned aboutthe impact of rising costs of steel, concrete and other buildingmaterials on the Boulder district’s capital plan. “We are hearinghorror stories about material costs eating away at budgets” andschool districts being forced to scale back their constructionprograms, he says. As a result, the district has built into its bud-get an inflation factor based on material-cost increases over thepast few years.

Investing in CollegeWith an increasing part of Generation Y approaching collegeage, public and private colleges and universities are continuing,and in some cases expanding, capital-spending programs thathave invested tens of billions of dollars in new academic, resi-dential and other facilities since the turn of the century. In fast-growing Texas, for example, the 190,000-student University ofTexas (UT) system currently has nearly $4 billion “active” pro-jects, including 38 totaling $1.2 billion that are in the designstage and 56 totaling $2.8 billion that are either under con-struction or substantially completed.

UT plans to expand its enrollment to 230,000 students by2015. Administrators expect to continue adding new buildingsand expand or renovate existing facilities at a fast pace into theearly years of the next decade to accommodate the needs ofthose 40,000 new students and to expand UT’s science andtechnology programs, in particular.

According to UT’s 2006-11 capital improvement plan, about$2.3 billion of the $4.1 billion to be spent on capital projectsover the period will come from bond sales. The $1.8-billion bal-ance will come from institutional funds, including an estimated$604 million in gifts and $736 million from hospital revenue.

tional construction, including $7.3 billion to support local K-12 work and $3.1 billion for community colleges and publicfour-year colleges and universities.

K-12 school construction also got big election-day boosts inWake County, N.C., and Boulder, Colo. In Wake County, vot-ers approved a $970-million school construction bond issue,clearing the way for Wake County Public School System tobuild 17 new schools by 2011, fully renovate 13 existing schoolsand perform smaller projects at 100 other schools. The newmoney also will enable the district to purchase land and start de-sign of 13 new schools, scheduled to be opened in the 2011-13timeframe.

Wake County officials expect to add another 7,000 to 9,000students each of the next six years, says spokeswoman KristinFlenniken, adding that the recently approved bond sale is onlythe first part of a larger plan to spend more than $4 billion onschool construction over the next eight to 10 years. Additionalreferendums are likely every two years to provide that funding.

In Boulder, voters approved a $293-million school bondissue. Joe Sleeper, executive director for operations at the Boul-der Valley School District, says that the bond issue is by far thelargest ever in Boulder, and is designed to help the district catchup on needed improvements to existing schools.

“The number of students in the district is somewhat stag-nant,” says Sleeper, adding that the district needs improvedspace, not additional space. Boulder’s most recent school bondissue, in 1998, funded construction of three new schools, but thenewly approved bonds will pay mostly for projects to makeclassroom space in the district’s 55 schools more flexible, andprovide technology-related improvements such as installation ofCategory 6 cable fiber for streaming Internet and video-on-demand.

One stand-out project on Boulder’s list involves the replace-ment of a Depression-era middle school in the city’s downtownwith a new LEED-certified facility that will demonstrate thepotential for environmental sensitivity and energy efficiency.

Education

The Top 10 College and University Construction Projects in Planning Phase

1 INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA STUDENT HOUSING, Indiana, Pa. NA 250.0 to 400.0

2 CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO (MULTIPLE PROJECTS), San Francisco, Calif. NA 100.0 to 200.0

3 SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIV. CREATIVE ARTS BUILDING REPLACEMENT, San Francisco, Calif. NA 130.0

4 LOS ANGELES TRADE AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE SOUTH CAMPUS PROJECT, Los Angeles, Calif. 148 100.0

5 UCLA LIFE SCIENCE REPLACEMENT BUILDING PROJECT, Los Angeles, Calif. 175 93.0

6 UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA CANCER INSTITUTE, Norman, Okla. 137 92.0

7 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE BUILDING, Austin, Texas 45 90.0

8 CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY GATES CENTER, Pittsburgh, Pa. 209 88.0

9 CENTRAL ARIZONA COLLEGE (MULTIPLE PROJECTS), Coolidge, Ariz. 137 87.9

10 IOWA STATE UNVERSITY CHEMISTRY FACILITIES, Ames, Iowa 155 87.5

*Based on construction value as reported by McGraw-Hill Construction Research and Analytics.NA=not available

SQ FT VALUERANK* PROJECT (THOUS.) ($ MIL.)

Page 27: Top Owners Sourcebook

ENR

52 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

approach allowed by the state,” says SDUSD’s Umstot. “Onmost projects, we still use the traditional design-bid-buildmethod, but on three new schools we have been using design-build,” because California permits its use on projects valued atmore than $10 million, he says.

Umstot also says the district uses “CM multi-prime,” underwhich the San Diego district selects a construction manager,

which then develops packages of work and bids that out. �

Major projects at UT’s best-known campus, in Austin, includea $151-million professional education and conference center, a$150-million art museum, a $99-million biomedical engineer-ing building and a $90-million residence hall.

The University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, is just start-ing one of its most ambitious projects ever: the $105-millionSouth Lawn project, a new academic complex that will be builtat the southern end of The Lawn, the school’s ThomasJefferson-designed center.

The South Lawn project, which will be paid for bya roughly 40/60 split of university funds and privatedonations, will involve the replacement of one of theuniversity’s largest classroom buildings with a newgroup of high-tech academic buildings whose architec-ture is more reflective of Jefferson’s classical design. The pro-ject also will include a football-field-size grassy area that will tra-verse a busy local road to connect the new complex with theoriginal Lawn.

Public institutions such as UVA are relying increasingly ondonations to support their capital-spending plans. In Septem-ber, the university publicly unveiled a $3-billion capital cam-paign—a record goal for a public college or university—afterquietly securing $1 billion in initial pledges. Much of the mon-ey raised will go toward building new facilities and renovatingexisting ones.

Private colleges and universities, whose capital programs inmany cases are even more dependent on gifts, have big plans oftheir own. Warren Jones, director of facilities planning atBrigham Young University in Salt Lake City, says BYU has“several major projects” in the planning and design stages,including a new, 200,000-sq-ft engineering building and a71,000-sq-ft addition to the university’s Marriott School ofManagement.

“Most of the funding [for BYU’s construction projects]comes from donors,” Jones says, adding that the university alsoreceives some funding from the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat-ter Day Saints.

Jerry Derloshon, spokesman for Pepperdine University, inMalibu, Calif., says the university’s “medium- and long-rangedreams” include enhancements to several existing facilities, plusnew student housing, a new recreation center, and an “eventscomplex” for basketball, volleyball and other sports. Plans forthe events complex are evolving, he says. The venue could seatup to 5,000 people and donors would provide the funding, headds.

In an effort to hold down costs, expedite construction andachieve other aims, facilities planning directors at most K-12school districts, colleges and universities say they have beenexperimenting with different approaches to contracting andproject delivery, including the use of construction managementfirms.

“We will consider using just about any [project-delivery]

Education

“We’re hearing horror stories” aboutconstruction materials costs.— JOE SLEEPER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, BOULDER

VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOULDER, COLO.

Page 28: Top Owners Sourcebook

Changing Approaches to Health Care Prompt Owners To Rethink BuildingsPatient-focused perspective leads spate of expansions, upgrades

Emergency ExpansionAnother emerging trend is a focus on emergency room im-provements and expansions, health care experts say. “Emer-gency departments across the country are inadequate,” says St.Vincent’s Canniff. Studies have shown that the public’s use ofemergency rooms is increasing between 5 and 10% each year,with increasing numbers of people using the emergency roomas their primary health care provider. “That’s creating a huge in-crease in the need for space,” Canniff explains. St. Vincent’s willexpand its emergency department from 14,000 sq ft to approx-imately 40,000 sq ft. It will be equipped to handle a large vol-ume of patients should a natural disaster or terrorist event occur,Canniff says. In addition, hospital officials plan to build a 35,000-sq-ft ambulatory cancer center and a 620-car parking garage.Gilbane Building Company, Providence, R.I., will serve as con-struction manager on the $100-million project and is to beginsitework in spring 2007.

Improvements in technology and a trend that shows increas-ing reliance on chemotherapy treatments are driving significantexpansions of cancer centers at medical institutions. Canniffestimates that chemotherapy use regionally is expected to in-crease as much as 10% annually for the next few years. “We’rebuilding to allow for some of that capacity increase as well as toimprove the amount of technology we’re able to provide ourlocal population,” Canniff says.

St. Joseph’s Hospital in Orange, Calif., is planning to builda new 87,000-sq-ft cancer center and 131,000-sq-ft medical officebuilding, as well as a 1,083-car parking garage as part of a 30-year master plan to reshape its campus. The Newport Beach,Calif., office of McCarthy Building Companies Inc. is provid-ing design-build services and plans to break ground this year.Steve Gilbert, vice president of St. Joseph Hospital’s construc-tion division, says the center will have “better curb appeal andoffer easier access for our patients in an environment that real-ly focuses on mind, body, and spirit.”

McCarthy also has an approximately $650-million contractto replace the existing acute care hospital at St. Joseph’s and isplanning to complete Phase I of the project in June 2007.

Gilbert says St. Joseph’s embarked on the master plan toconform its buildings to tougher seismic requirements imple-mented in California in 1994. “Essentially, any hospital build-

Changing ideas about health care delivery is promptingowners of health care facilities to embark on ambitiousconstruction programs to create more patient-focusedbuildings. One major trend has been a shift to provide

more outpatient services.“Health care is switching from what everyone would say is

an inpatient model to an outpatient model,” says Michael Can-niff, project manager at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridge-port, Conn., which is planning a 70,000 sq-ft renovation and a100,000-sq-ft expansion of its cam-pus as the first phase of a 10-year master plan.

Jeff Land, vice president of corporate real estate at San Fran-cisco-based Catholic Healthcare West, says, “Increasingly, ser-vices do not have to be provided at a hospital setting. They canbe provided more in a doctor’s office or an imaging center,surgery center, blood drawing station or laboratory services.”

Catholic Healthcare West, which operates in Arizona, Cal-ifornia and Nevada, has an average of 30 to 35 projects underway every year, with an annual total dollar volume in the hun-dreds of millions, Land says. “That number is fairly consistent[year to year] because all these projects are multiyear.” New orplanned projects include new medical office buildings and am-bulatory surgery center expansions. “In the health care indus-try, we’re certainly pushing more services like that out into thecommunity,” he says.

A number of projects planned by the U.S. Dept. of VeteransAffairs are outpatient facilities, says Bob Neary, VA acting chieffacilities management officer. “The VA system in general overthe past decade has been making a major transformation frominpatient care to outpatient care,” he says.

The outpatient facilities are part of a major VA initiative,called Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES),to restructure its health care facilities. The VA requested $307million for health care construction projects in its fiscal 2007budget request to Congress. The total program, first announcedin 2004, involves 36 projects for a total of nearly $3 billion.Approximately 15 of the 36 contracts have been awarded. TheVA plans to award another seven or eight in 2007, Neary says.Among the planned projects are three new hospitals, outpatientmedical centers, seismic upgrades and patient ward upgradesand expansions.

By Pam Hunter

Health Care

ENR

enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 55

Page 29: Top Owners Sourcebook

But that program was geared toward commercial buildings, nothealth care facilities with specific needs, Ravanesi says.

“The Green Guide, in just the first few years that is has beenaround, has created a sea change,” Ravanesi says. “It’s really con-nected this whole credit structure to health.” The U.S. GreenBuilding Council plans to work with the Green Guide forHealth Care initiative to develop a new LEED for Health Careto be released sometime in mid 2007, Ravanesi says. �

ing that was built prior to 1973 is targeted [by the regulations],and St. Joseph’s Hospital is no exception,” he says.

The St. Joseph’s Health System also plans to break groundon a new acute care tower at Mission Hospital in Mission Viejoearly in 2007. McCarthy is the contractor on that project. Inaddition, St. Joseph’s has projects under way at hospitals inFullerton and Santa Rosa, Calif. Sacramento-Calif.-based Har-bison Mahoney Higgins Builders is the contractor on the San-ta Rosa Memorial Hospital expansion, begun in September2006, and San Francisco, Calif.-based Swinerton Builders is thecontractor on the St. Jude Medical Center project in Fullerton,begun in 2005.

A number of hospitals have shown interest in building green.Approximately 105 hospitals are in a pilot program that uses thenew Green Guide for Health Care as a tool, says Bill Ravanesi,Boston regional director for Health Care Without Harm, ahealth care consulting firm. A team of architects, builders andhealth care leaders developed the guide, first released in 2004,to allow health care institutions to apply the principles of greenbuilding to health care facilities.

Previously, health care institutions that wanted to buildgreen used the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design (LEED) program as a basis.

Health Care

The Top 25 Health Care Construction Projects in Planning Phase

1 MISSION BAY HOSPITAL COMPLEX, San Francisco, Calif. New 1,700 UCSF MEDICAL CENTER, San Francisco, Calif.

2 PALOMAR HOSPITAL, Escondido, Calif. New 1,000 PALOMAR POMERADO HEALTH SYSTEM, Poway, Calif.

3 LSU/VA MEDICAL CENTER, New Orleans, La. New 1,000 DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, New Orleans. La.

4 RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Chicago, Ill. Renovation 810 RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Chicago, Ill.

5 HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER, Hershey, Pa. Renovation 800 HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER, Hershey, Pa.

6 GREENBRIER SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITIES, Dallas, Texas New 800 SENIOR CARE DEVELOPMENT, North Branford, Conn.

7 SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL, San Francisco, Calif. New 650 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, San Francisco, Calif.

8 KAISER SAN LEANDRA MEDICAL CENTER, San Leandro, Calif. New 600 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, Oakland, Calif.

9 SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, San Francisco, Calif. New 534 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, San Francisco, Calif.

10 KAISER OAKLAND HOSPITAL, Oakland, Calif. New 525 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, Oakland, Calif.

11 UMHHC C.S. MOTT CHILDREN’S & WOMEN’S HOSPITAL, Ann Arbor, Mich. New 523 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, Mich.

12 OSU MEDICAL CENTER SOUTH CAMPUS, Columbus, Ohio New 471 OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Columbus, Ohio

13 ROSEVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, Roseville, Calif. Renovation/New 467 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, Oakland, Calif.

14 SUTTER GENERAL/MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Sacramento, Calif. Renovation/New 456 SUTTER HEALTH, Sacramento, Calif.

15 NATIONAL NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER, Bethesda, Md. Renovation 400 NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, Indian Head, Md.

16 ST. JOSEPH REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Mishawaka, Ind. New 355 ST. JOSEPH REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, South Bend, Ind.

17 ELMHURST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Elmhurst, Ill. New 350 ELMHURST MEDICAL CENTER, Elmhurst, Ill.

18 LINDEN PONDS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, Hingham, Mass. New 350 ERICKSON RETIREMENT, Catonsville, Md.

19 TOME SCHOOL RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, Port Deposit, Md. Renovation 350 PAUL RISK ASSOCIATES, INC., Quarryville, Pa.

20 MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, Chattanooga, Tenn. Renovation 320 CATHOLIC HEALTH INITIATIVE, Colorado Springs, Colo.

21 TRINITY MEDICAL CENTER, Montclair, Ala. New 316 TRINITY MEDICAL CENTER, Birmingham, Ala.

22 TUCSON MEDICAL CENTER, Tucson, Ariz. New 300 TUCSON MEDICAL CENTER, Tucson, Ariz.

23 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, San Carlos, Calif. New 300 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, Palo Alto, Calif.

24 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Washington, D.C. New 300 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Washington, D.C.

25 SEDGEBROOK RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, Lincolnshire,Ill. New 300 ERICKSON RETIREMENT, Catonsville, Md.

*Based on construction value as reported by McGraw-Hill Construction Research and Analytics.

VALUERANK* PROJECT TYPE ($ MIL.) OWNER

ENR

56 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com

Page 30: Top Owners Sourcebook

Copyright © 2006, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The information contained herein has been obtained by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. from sources believed to be reliable. However,because of the possibility of human or mechanical error, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. does not guarantee the accuracy or complete-ness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from use of such information.

This material is the property of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“McGraw-Hill”) or is licensed to McGraw-Hill. This material may not bereproduced, transmitted, or distributed without the express written permission of McGraw-Hill. The user of this material may not commin-gle any portion of this material with any other information and shall not edit, modify, or alter any portion.

ENR Top Lists – 2006Top 500 Design Firms – April 24

Top 400 Contractors – May 22

Top 100 Construction Management For Fee, Top 100 Construction Management-at-Risk, Top 100 Design-Build Firms, Top 40 Program Management Firms – June 12

Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – July 3

Top 200 International Design Firms – July 24

Top 225 International Contractors – August 21/28

Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 16

ENR Sourcebooks – 2006Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 26Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 18Top Owners Sourcebook – November 13Global Construction Sourcebook – December 18

ENR Top Lists – 2005Top 500 (U.S.) Design Firms – April 18Top 400 (U.S.) Contractors – May 16Top 100 Construction Managers, Design-Builders, &

Program Managers – June 13Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – July 4Top 200 International Design Firms – July 25Top 225 International Contractors – August 22/29Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 17

ENR SOURCEBOOKS – 2005Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 20Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 19Top Owners Sourcebook – November 142005 Global Construction Sourcebook – December 12

ENR Top Lists – 2004Top 500 (U.S.) Design Firms – April 19Top 400 (U.S.) Contractors – May 17Top 100 Construction Managers, Design-Builders, &

Program Managers – June 14Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – July 5Top 200 International Design Firms – July 26Top 225 International Contractors – August 23Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 18

ENR SOURCEBOOKS – 2004Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 28Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 27Top Owners Sourcebook – November 82004 Global Construction Sourcebook – December 2004Construction Facts – December 2004

ENR Top Lists – 2003Top 500 Design Firms – April 21Top 400 Contractors – May 19Top 100 Construction Managers, Design-Builders, &

Program Managers – June 16Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – June 2Top 200 International Design Firms – July 28Top 225 International Contractors – August 25Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 20

ENR SOURCEBOOKS – 2003Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 2003Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 2003Top Owners Sourcebook – November 10Construction Facts – November 20032003 Global Construction Sourcebook – January 5, 2004

ENR (Engineering News-Record), (ISSN 0891-9526). Publishedweekly except for one issue in January and one issue in August byThe McGraw-Hill Companies, 1221 Ave. of the Americas, New York,N.Y. 10020. Founder: James H. McGraw (1860-1948). Executive,

editorial, circulation, advertising offices: Two Penn Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10121-2298. Phone (212) 512-2000. Postmaster: Pleasesend address changes to ENR/Engineering News-Record, Attention: Fulfillment Manager, P.O. Box 5730, Harlan, IA 51593. Periodicalspostage paid at New York, N.Y., and at additional mailing offices. Canada Post Publication Mail Agreement No.40012501. Registered forGST as The McGraw-Hill Companies. GST #R123075673. RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO: DPGM Ltd., 2-7496Bath Road, Mississauga, ON L4T 1L2. Email: [email protected]. Copyright, printing and reprinting: Titles EngineeringNews-Record (ENR) and CONSTRUCTION WEEK reg. ® in U.S. Patent Office. Copyright © 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rightsreserved. Officers of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.: Harold W. McGraw III, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer;Robert J. Bahash, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Kenneth M. Vittor, Executive Vice President and General Counsel;Frank D. Penglase, Senior Vice President, Treasury Operations. McGraw-Hill Construction: Norbert W. Young, Jr., FAIA, President;

Howard Mager, Sr. VP., MH Construction; Nilo Ramos, Sr. Director, Finance. Where necessary, permission is granted by copyright ownerfor those registered with Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923, www.copyright.com, tophotocopy any article herein for personal or internal reference use only for the flat fee of $1.20 per copy for each article. ENRConstruction Economics, Top Rankings and Sourcebooks available for a fee in downloadable PDF format at www.ENR.com. Send pay-ment to CCC. ISSN 0891-9526/92. Copying for other than personal or internal reference use without express permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies is prohibited. Write the editor to request such permission. Printed in the USA. Subscription rates for individuals inthe field of the publication: U.S. and possessions, $82 per year (single copies $5 in U.S.); Canada and Mexico, $89 per year; outsideNorth America, $195 per year. Please allow four to six weeks for shipment. Subscriber service: (877) 876-8208 or (515) 237-3681. Forsingle copies, (212) 904-4634. Send all correspondence, notices and subscription orders to Fulfillment Manager, ENR, P.O. Box 5730,Harlan, IA 51593. If possible, attach address label from a recent issue. Please contact customer service to change your name oraddress. If the postal authorities alert us that your magazine is undeliverable, we have no further obligation unless we receive acorrected address within two years. Please allow a month for change of address to take effect. Classified advertising: Send ads to ENR,Classified Advertising, Two Penn Plaza, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10121. Phone (212) 904-2815.

SERVING THE INDUSTRY SINCE 1874

Engineering News-Record

ENR’s Complete Top List and Sourcebook Series: Page images of all stories and data related to Top Lists and Sourcebooks published in ENR

Available at The McGraw-Hill Information Center (click here)