Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Capital Improvement Program and Campus Renewal Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2004 Facilities Conference February 6, 2004.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Capital Improvement Program and Campus Renewal Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2004 Facilities Conference February 6, 2004."— Presentation transcript:

1 Capital Improvement Program and Campus Renewal Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2004 Facilities Conference February 6, 2004

2  6 Health Institutions  9 Academic Institutions  170,000 Total Students  160,000 Academic Students  $7.1 Billion Annual Operation Budget  $2.5 Billion Academic Budget  35 Million Square Feet of Academic Facilities  60 Million Square Feet of Facilities Space  $13.5 Billion Replacement Value  1400 Buildings Capital Improvement Program and Campus Renewal U. T. System Key Statistics Page 1February 6, 2004

3 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Overview  Adopted every two years by the Board of Regents and amended periodically Page 2 February 6, 2004  Includes all proposed new construction of $1 million or greater  Includes all repair and renovation of $2 million or greater  Includes any project with Board-authorized debt  Inclusion on the CIP requires that the project have a realistic funding strategy and meet certain evaluation criteria  Inclusion on the CIP allows up to 3% of the project budget to be spent on programming and preliminary design

4  Project funding:  Whether the project will generate gift or grant funding or other unique funding opportunities  The component’s ability to access other sources of funding as measured by debt service coverage and unrestricted current fund balance.  Whether the project will generate self-supporting revenues Capital Improvement Program Evaluation Criteria Page 3 February 6, 2004  The project’s consistency with the institution’s mission  The level of importance of the project in meeting institutional goals  The project’s cost effectiveness in terms of new construction versus renovation  Effectiveness of the project based on the THECB space utilization and cost criteria  The condition of the existing facilities

5 Capital Improvement Program Process for Adding Project to CIP Page 4 February 6, 2004 component institutions submit list of CIP projects System Administration receives list of CIP projects Academic Affairs, OFPC, OF review projects in accordance with CIP project guidelines Health Affairs, OFPC, OF review projects in accordance with CIP project guidelines draft CIP presented to EVC Business Affairs, EVC Academic Affairs, and EVC Health Affairs

6 Capital Improvement Program Process for Adding Project to CIP Page 5 February 6, 2004 CIP presented to Chancellor Recommended CIP and Capital Budget presented to BOR for adoption BOR evaluates and adopts CIPBOR evaluates and approves Capital Budget component can expend up to 3% for programming and DDs. Later, project is moved to Capital Budget. new construction projects brought back to BOR repair and rehabilitation projects approved and appropriated

7 Capital Improvement Program Process for Adding Project to CIP Page 6 February 6, 2004 BOR approves DDs; appropriates funding; authorizes expenditures Chancellor approves DDs; authorizes expenditures project proceeds to completion

8 Capital Improvement Program Project Delivery Process Page 7 February 6, 2004  Component Institution Establishes Internal Capital Improvement Program  Identifies needs  Identifies resources  Determines resource allocation and establishes priority  Project Staffing  Component establishes building committee of departmental users, facility management staff, and appropriate service departments  OFPC assigns Project Manager and retains design team and construction team to work with building committee

9 Capital Improvement Program Project Delivery Process Page 8 February 6, 2004 Campus Administration Construction Team Building Users Facility Department OFPC Project Manager Design Team Other Service Departments

10 Ability to influence budget is very high in early design and very low during construction. Capital Improvement Program Cost Control: Influence Curve Page 9 BUDGETARY INFLUENCE FPNTPSC 015 mo.33 mo. DESIGNCONSTRUCTION Project flexibility and options should be explored early in facility program and schematic design. Cost uncertainty is directly related — it is high in the early phases and low during construction. To mitigate the risk of uncertainty, contingencies must be high early and can be reduced later.

11 Capital Improvement Program FY Capital Improvement Program Summary 166 Projects totaling $4.59 Billion* Current CIP ( )$4,311,723,981 Net Changes to Existing Projects 43,665,000 Completed Projects (549,457,799) Removed Projects (472,006,882) New Projects Added 1,257,984,500 New CIP ( )$4,591,908,800 Page 10 February 6, 2004 *August 2003

12 Capital Improvement Program FY Capital Improvement Program Summary Page 11February 6, 2004 Recent Trend in CIP Growth

13 Capital Improvement Program FY Capital Improvement Program Summary Page 12February 6, Projects totaling $4.59 Billion Total CIP: $4.59 Billion New Projects: $1.26 Billion

14 Capital Improvement Program FY Capital Improvement Program Summary Page 13February 6, 2004 Total CIP: $4.59 Billion 29% 71% CIP by Institution

15 Capital Improvement Program FY Capital Improvement Program Summary Page 14February 6, 2004 RFS by Institution CIP Funding 3% 11% 38% 10% 13% 5% 17% 1% 2%

16 Capital Improvement Program FY Capital Improvement Program Summary Page 15February 6, 2004 Health CIP: $3.24 Billion 35% 10% 14% 6% 25% 7% 2% 1% Health CIP W/out Auxiliary: $2.95 Billion 15% 7% 25% 11% 30% 8% 2%

17 Capital Improvement Program FY Capital Improvement Program Summary Page 16February 6, 2004 Academic CIP: $1.35 Billion 47% 13% 8% 11% 16% 4% 1% Academic CIP W/out Auxiliary: $881 Million 24% 19% 18% 13% 23% 2% 1% Academic CIP w/out Auxiliary or Austin: $443 Million 37% 38% 14% 3% 2% 3%

18 Auxiliary Projects: $794 Million Capital Improvement Program FY Capital Improvement Program Summary Page 17February 6, 2004 Projects by Type Total CIP: $4.59 Billion 38% 11% 9% 17% 8%

19 Total CIP: $4.59 Billion 57% 13% 23% 7% Capital Improvement Program FY Capital Improvement Program Summary Page 18February 6, 2004 Future Projects: $4.55 Billion 43% 15% 10% 32%

20  Working Group Established Fall 2000 Three Academic Component Representatives Three Health Component Representatives  Contract Awarded to Pacific Partners Consulting Group October 2001  The University of California System  The University of Oregon  Smithsonian Institute  Working Group Reviewed Alternatives and Issued RFP in June 2001  Constructing the Model Assumptions Fall 2001  Regional Training Winter 2001/2002  Data Collection and Scrubbing Spring 2002  Presentation of Results Summer 2002  Update Results Summer 2003 Campus Renewal Project History Page 19February 6, 2004

21  Project annual funding requirements for ongoing renewal  Project funding requirements of current backlog Statistical Model to:  Allow facility staff to better predict and plan capital renewal projects  Provide a consistent assessment tool to monitor facility conditions over time  Allow facility staff to maintain and update the model with reasonable effort Campus Renewal Project Goals Page 20February 6, 2004

22 Two Key Elements: The Concept of Life Cycle Planning  The remaining life of each building system can be estimated.  Building Systems have known life expectancies. Campus Renewal Renewal Curves and Life-Cycle Modeling Page 21February 6, 2004

23 The “Basics” of A Renewal Curve  A 30-year forecast is made by facility, by types of facilities, by campuses and, finally, system-wide  Life cycles and replacement costs are predicted for each subsystem based on institution specific experience and industry standards  Renewal costs are based on campus experience for the type of system and building Campus Renewal Life Cycle Planning Page 22February 6, 2004

24 Campus Renewal Facilities Wear-Out is Cyclical Page 23February 6, 2004

25  The top is frequently 200% - 300% of bottom  Renewal curves are cyclical  The “bottom” frequently happened in the 1990s  Backlog and Renewal are related Campus Renewal Why are Renewal Curves Important? Page 24February 6, 2004

26 Campus Renewal Renewal and DM Backlog are Related Page 25February 6, 2004

27 Process for Developing a U. T. Facilities Renewal Model Facilities Inventory 1. Determine focus of Capital Renewal/Deferred Maintenance Study Facilities included Facilities excluded 2. Group facilities into common categories: Basic, Complex, Simple, Small BasicComplexSimpleSmall Categories of Facilities Subsystems 3. Identify subsystems for each facility category Plumbing Electric HVACRoofEtc. 4. Determine life cycle and renewal cost parameters for each subsystem Life Cycle and Cost Campus Renewal The Facilities Renewal Resource Model Page 26February 6, 2004

28 Working Group Recommendations: Subsystems and Life Cycles  Exteriors20-30  Elevators 25  HVAC Equipment 20  HVAC Distribution 40  Electrical 30  Roofing  Plumbing Rough-in 50  Fire Protection 25  Fire Detection 20  Built-in Equipment 25  Interior Finishes 15  Plumbing Fixtures 30 Campus Renewal FY Capital Improvement Program Summary Page 27February 6, 2004

29 Typical Replacement Costs* Basic Complex Simple Small % SF Construction $/SF Project $/SF 51% $150/SF $185/SF 33% $250/SF $310/SF 11% $ 40/SF $ 50/SF 5% $ 85/SF $105/SF *Based on 58 U. T. System projects over the last five years. Campus Renewal Preliminary Results Page 28February 6, 2004

30 Building XYZ constructed in 1975 (complex) Roofing Building Exterior HVAC Equipment Electrical Plumbing Fire Protection Built-in Equipment Interior Finishes $ $ $ $ $ $ Life Cycle Years Last Renewal Date Next Renewal Date Cost to Renew Building Subsystem Campus Renewal How Does it Work? Page 29February 6, 2004

31 Campus Renewal Total Construction in 5-Year Cohorts Page 30February 6, 2004

32 Backlog CRV FCI = Calculating a Facilities Condition Index (FCI)  Numerator = Backlog (Est. Current Renewal Needs) Building Components that have exceeded their life-cycle  Denominator = CRV (Current Replacement Value) Based on Current OFPC Costs Campus Renewal Preliminary Results Page 31February 6, 2004

33 Facility Conditions Index (Backlog divided by CRV) System (#)LowAve. High UT (15)0% 6% 10% System A (24)3% 11% 36% System B (7)6% 18% 24% System C (9)7% 23% 32% Campus Renewal Benchmark Data Page 32February 6, 2004

34 Why are there such large variances in the FCI Benchmark?  Age of Campus  Special Considerations  Types of Buildings Campus Renewal Benchmark Data Page 33February 6, 2004

35 Campus Renewal Comparison of Model Results Page 34February 6, 2004

36 120,000 GSF classroom, lab, and office space for Departments of Psychology and Spanish and Portuguese, completed in 1951; in the center of campus, now considered historic Challenge  doesn’t meet life/safety code or ADA  inadequate and worn out mechanical and electrical systems  interior finishes have substantial wear  exterior needs substantial maintenance  original uses moving out of building creating need for different configuration  location in historic center of campus presents several issues  strong desire to maintain the original architectural character  need for more space is great—real estate is precious Response  rebuild building completely with all new mechanical, electrical, and fire/life safety systems  reconfigure buildings to meet new needs for new departments  addition of new SF in center of campus will be done in original campus architecture Campus Renewal Case Study #1: Benedict/Mezes/Batts Renovation—UT Austin Page 35February 6, 2004

37  Relatively Inexpensive — 1/10 the cost  Flexible Multi-year Planning  Sustainable Approach  Credible with Senior Officers  Consistent and Comparable Results Across Institutions Campus Renewal Why U. T. System Selected Life Cycle Modeling Page 36February 6, 2004  Relatively Easy to Update and Can be Used as a Multi-Year Performance Tracking

38  Histograms are valuable — Facility conditions are closely related to age  Definitions are important  Renewal is cyclical  Renewal and the Backlog are LINKED  Life Cycle models are planning tools Campus Renewal Key Points Page 37February 6, 2004  Building wear-out — some are not worth reinvesting  Next 10 years is a period of increasing renewal needs

39 119,000 GSF science/research building for Natural Sciences and Mathematics completed in 1964 Challenge  doesn’t meet life/safety code or ADA  inadequate and worn out mechanical and electrical systems  HVAC systems don’t meet current standards for laboratory  lab layouts are inadequate to meet current lab standards  space utilization has expanded into corridors  without “surge” space renovation would be incremental, disruptive, and expensive Response  construct new addition to house relocated, utility-intensive wet labs from Founders  renovate part of existing building to a lesser standard without wet labs—only offices, dry labs, and support space  indefinitely mothball and vacate portion of building Campus Renewal Case Study #2: Founders Building Renovation—UT Dallas Page 38February 6, 2004

40 215,000 GSF science/research building for Natural Sciences built in 1950 Challenge  doesn’t meet life/safety code or ADA  inadequate and worn out mechanical and electrical systems  HVAC systems don’t meet current laboratory standards  lab layout and arrangement do not meet current lab standards  limited floor-to-floor height (12 to 13 ft.)  location in historic portion of campus requires maintaining original architectural character  new Center for Nano and Molecular Science and Technology research program scheduled to occupy building; requires Class 100, 1000, and 10,000 clean rooms Response  constructed new addition to house clean rooms and required mechanical space; in original campus architecture  renovate portion of existing building to house administrative office and support spaces  large portion of existing building will remain untouched until suitable funds and building use are established, or a decision is made to replace the building Campus Renewal Case Study #3: Experimental Science Building Renovation—UT Austin Page 39February 6, 2004

41 Questions?


Download ppt "Capital Improvement Program and Campus Renewal Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2004 Facilities Conference February 6, 2004."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google