A Summary of Campus Master PlansA Summary of Deferred Maintenance:
Current Accumulated Needs,
Current Expenditures, and
Planned Five-Year Expenditures
(MP2, MP3, and MP4)
for
FY 2003 to FY 2007
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Division of Finance, Campus Planning, and Research
January 2003
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Pamela P. Willeford(Chair)Austin
Martin Basaldua, M.D. (Vice Chair)Kingwood
Raul B. Fernandez (Secretary of the Board)San Antonio
Neal W. AdamsBedford
Ricardo G. Cigarroa, M.D.Laredo
Gen. Marc Cisneros (ret.)Corpus Christi
Kevin EltifeTyler
Jerry FarringtonDallas
Cathy Obriotti GreenSan Antonio
Gerry GriffinHunt
Carey HobbsWaco
Adair MargoEl Paso
Lorraine PerrymanOdessa
Curtis E. RansomDallas
Hector de J. Ruiz, Ph.DAustin
Robert W. ShepardHarlingen
Windy SittonLubbock
Terdema L. Ussery IIDallas
Coordinating Board Mission
The mission of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is to provide the Legislature advice and comprehensive planning capability for higher education, to coordinate the effective delivery of higher education, to administer efficiently assigned statewide programs, and to advance higher education for the people of Texas.
THECB Strategic Plan
Coordinating Board Philosophy
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will promote access to quality higher education across the state with the conviction that access without quality is mediocrity and that quality without access is elitism. The Board will be open, ethical, responsive, and committed to public service. The Board will approach its work with a sense of purpose and responsibility to the people of Texas and is committed to the best use of public monies.
THECB Strategic Plan
Executive Summary
Section 61.0582 of the Texas Education Code requires that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board collect information on new construction, major repair and rehabilitation projects, and deferred maintenance needs at public universities, health-related institutions, and technical colleges. In the past, the Coordinating Board has implemented that requirement by collecting four reports each October:
- MP 1 details all planned construction in the next five years.
- MP 2 identifies current accumulated deferred maintenance needs.
- MP 3 lists projects planned to address accumulated deferred maintenance needs in the next five years.
- MP 4 lists actual expenditures on accumulated deferred maintenance in the most recent Fiscal Year.
This report summarizes the deferred maintenance reported in the MP2, MP3, and MP4 submissions filed at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2002. Due to a request by the 77th Legislature during thein 2001 session, the MP1 was combined with the Bond Review Board’s biennial Capital Expenditure Report and submitted in June 2002; a summary of that report is available under separate cover.
Highlights of this report on deferred maintenance include the following:
- Expenditures for accumulated deferred maintenance in educational and general facilities rose approximately 14 percent, from $92.7 million in Fiscal Year 2001 to $105.5 million in Fiscal Year 2002.
- The amount of money needed to address accumulated deferred maintenance in educational and general facilities as of October 2002 is reported to be $542.2 million, down from the $603.7 million reported in Fiscal Year 2001.
- As a percentage of the institutions’ replacement value, theThe estimated cost of reducing total accumulated deferred maintenance in educational and general facilities decreased from 4.5 percent of replacement value of total space in Fiscal Year 2001 to 3.6 percent in Fiscal Year 2002.
- Critical deferred maintenance of educational and general facilities, which places the institution’s facilities, occupants, or mission at risk, increased from 0.47 percent of replacement value of total space in Fiscal Year 2001 to 0.49 percent in Fiscal Year 2002.
- Critical deferred maintenance in auxiliary facilities decreased for the second year in a row, to approximately $18.9 million.
The data in this report was reviewed by the Coordinating Board’s Committee on Campus Planning on December 10, 2002.
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………. i.. ii
Lists of Tables and Graphs …………………………………………………………………………….. ivii
An Overview of Facilities in Texas Public Universities, Health-Related Institutions,
and Technical Colleges ……………………………………………………………………………….. 1
The Campus Master Planning Process ……………………………………………………………... 3
Accumulated Deferred Maintenance Needs ………………………………………………………... 5
Five-Year Plans to Address Accumulated Deferred Maintenance ………………………………...… 10
Fiscal Year 2002 Expenditures on Deferred Maintenance ………………………………………... 11
Conclusions.. …………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
Appendix A: Campus Master Plan Report Summaries …………………………………………… A--1
Lists of Tables and Graphs
Tables
Table 1: Replacement Value of Total Available Space, 2002 ……………………………………….…………2
Table 2: MP2 – Cost of Accumulated Deferred Maintenance Needs Reported
October 2002…………………………………………………………………………………..A-2
Table 3: MP3 – Five-Year Planned Expenditures for Accumulated Deferred Maintenance
Reported October 2002…………………………………………………………………….... .A-3
Table 4: MP4 – Expenditures on Deferred Maintenance in Fiscal Year 2002 Reported
October 2002………………………………………………………………………………… .. A-4
Graphs
Graph 1: Accumulated Deferred Maintenance from FY 1997 to FY 2002…………………………..55
Graph 2: Accumulated Deferred Maintenance as a Percentage of Replacement Value
.... from FY 1997 to FY 2002………………………………………………………………………... 6
Graph 3: Critical Deferred Maintenance as a Percentage of Replacement Value
from FY 1997 to FY 2002 ……………………………………………………………………...7
Graph 4: Critical Accumulated Deferred Maintenance Needs as of OctoberReported in FY 2002 ……………..…..8
Graph 5: Distribution of Accumulated Deferred Maintenance by Type as of OctoberReported in FY2002 . . …… …...…..9
Graph 6: Comparison of Five- Year Planned Expenditures for Accumulated Deferred
Maintenance Reported in FY 2001 and FY 2002 FY 2002 vs. FY 2001………………………………………………… ……...…1010
Graph 7: Expenditures on Deferred Maintenance in FY 2002 …………………………………… ………..…...11
Graph 8: Planned vs. Actual Deferred Maintenance Expenditures (in Millions) …..………………..…12
1
An Overview of Facilities in Texas Public Universities,
Health-Related Institutions, and TechnicalColleges
This report provides information about facilities at Texas public universities, health-related institutions, and technical colleges. Because Texas public community colleges are state-assisted institutions that must support their facilities from local funds or ad valorem tax funds, their facilities do not require the Board’s review and are not included.
The space required for institutions of higher education has increased with enrollments. In general, enrollments and facilities grew at a relatively slow rate until the 1950s. From 1950 through the early 1970s, there was an unprecedented building boom at Texas institutions of higher education. Several new campuses were created and a number of major additions were made to existing campuses. Between the mid-1970s and the early 1990s, the growth of campuses slowed considerably. Institutions began concentrating more on improving and maintaining the quality of existing campuses and facilities. This continues today, a, as the state focuses on the goals of Closing the Gaps. Institutions understand the need to provide adequate space for the forecasted student population growth. As a result, they are reviewing their master plans to determine the best use of funds – construct new buildings or maintain existing ones. As the aging buildings constructed during the building boom begin experiencing significant maintenance issues because of their age, and institutions shell outspend more and more money to address these issues, deferred maintenance has become a major problem statewide.
In addition to the classrooms, libraries, and offices that people expect to find, higher education facilities also include dormitories, food service facilities, sophisticated research laboratories, athletic arenas, and a wide array of other facilities. In general, higher education facilities can beare categorized as follows:
- Academic– -- facilities that support the primary instruction, research, and public service functions of the institution. Typical academic facilities include classrooms, libraries, administrative and faculty offices, student and research laboratories, etc.
- Auxiliary–self-supporting facilities that house activities that support the primary mission of the institution. Typical auxiliary facilities include dormitories and food service facilities, bookstores, continuing education training facilities, etc. In many cases, a given building or portion of a building may house both academic and auxiliary functions. In these cases, the space is allocated appropriately.
- Health-Related--– facilities used to provide medical care and training to students in health-related fields.
- Support--– facilities that house support functions such as motor pools, copy centers, warehouses, storage facilities, etc.
- Athletic--– facilities that support athletic programs, including intercollegiate, intramural, and athletically-oriented academic programs.
The following table provides a summary of the total square feet of space available at each institution and an estimated replacement value for that space. Facilities for these institutions represent a major investment for Texas. The 37 public universities and state colleges, nine health-related institutions, and the Texas State Technical College System together occupy over 140 million gross square feet with an estimated replacement value of over $14.3 4 billion.
Table 1:
Replacement Value of Total Available Space, 2002
Institution / Total Square Feet / Replacement ValueGross / NASF / E&G NASF
TexasA&MUniversity System
PrairieViewA&MUniversity / 2,848,832 / 1,205,680 / 693,177 / $163,808,107
TarletonStateUniversity / 1,695,655 / 1,072,908 / 746,190 / $143,124,233
TexasA&MInternationalUniversity * / 539,186 / 222,528 / 206,824 / $46,368,001
TexasA&MUniversity / 17,196,864 / 11,531,411 / 4,681,276 / $1,198,789,703
Texas A&M University-Commerce / 2,319,159 / 1,465,979 / 776,790 / $151,123,495
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi / 909,422 / 650,849 / 510,738 / $102,480,393
TexasA&MUniversity at Galveston / 457,678 / 276,473 / 149,520 / $37,010,482
Texas A&M University-Kingsville / 1,912,102 / 1,274,734 / 827,695 / $176,412,675
Texas A&M University-Texarkana / 113,986 / 71,201 / 67,859 / $17,242,605
WestTexasA&MUniversity / 2,297,483 / 1,439,117 / 757,504 / $165,663,048
TexasStateUniversity System
AngeloStateUniversity / 1,513,183 / 967,009 / 516,569 / $114,888,565
Lamar Institute of Technology / 167,827 / 101,837 / 97,508 / $16,123,222
Lamar State College-Orange / 242,909 / 137,822 / 113,945 / $29,340,106
Lamar State College-Port Arthur / 252,087 / 164,211 / 114,826 / $27,434,292
LamarUniversity / 1,860,772 / 1,196,734 / 824,143 / $208,202,857
SamHoustonStateUniversity / 2,620,143 / 1,605,426 / 912,465 / $191,108,103
SouthwestTexasStateUniversity / 4,386,678 / 2,574,482 / 1,493,698 / $398,866,230
SulRossStateUniversity / 887,768 / 459,447 / 295,491 / $63,707,911
The University of Texas System
The University of Texas at Arlington / 4,160,155 / 3,108,168 / 2,355,702 / $448,332,325
The University of Texas at Austin / 19,307,893 / 10,678,189 / 7,583,416 / $1,998,617,724
The University of Texas at Brownsville / 788,827 / 555,785 / 512,124 / $24,373,558
The University of Texas at Dallas / 1,826,010 / 1,152,546 / 807,239 / $217,954,282
The University of Texas at El Paso / 3,435,938 / 1,999,516 / 1,302,157 / $342,267,765
The University of Texas at San Antonio / 2,210,017 / 1,219,637 / 1,027,077 / $279,698,193
The University of Texas at Tyler / 574,874 / 334,759 / 301,413 / $82,665,966
The University of Texas of the PermianBasin / 579,740 / 280,379 / 212,363 / $55,931,676
The University of Texas-Pan American / 2,002,230 / 1,186,015 / 995,102 / $228,841,887
University of Houston System
University of Houston / 6,368,552 / 4,029,779 / 2,842,842 / $749,203,461
University of Houston-Clear Lake / 600,304 / 458,324 / 391,471 / $90,823,950
University of Houston-Downtown / 1,089,363 / 647,416 / 442,300 / $110,442,522
University of Houston-Victoria / 180,498 / 107,663 / 93,410 / $18,126,729
MidwesternStateUniversity / 1,093,151 / 733,140 / 497,690 / $113,968,070
StephenF.AustinStateUniversity / 3,072,416 / 1,953,109 / 1,081,164 / $247,310,295
Texas Southern University / 1,385,150 / 864,339 / 750,507 / $207,868,824
TexasTechUniversity / 7,442,234 / 4,268,917 / 2,616,343 / $682,054,362
Texas Woman's University / 2,413,625 / 1,470,561 / 893,783 / $223,107,260
University of NorthTexas / 5,291,960 / 2,895,053 / 1,995,737 / $471,202,583
TotalPublicUniversities and State Colleges / 106,044,671 / 64,361,143 / 40,488,058 / $9,844,485,460
Texas State Technical College-Harlingen / 857,509 / 588,587 / 432,760 / $76,755,504
Texas State Technical College-Marshall / 138,126 / 91,459 / 88,062 / $0
Texas State Technical College-Waco / 2,562,665 / 1,722,480 / 801,817 / $136,888,229
Texas State Technical College-West Texas / 469,810 / 316,669 / 260,804 / $28,173,321
TotalTexasStateTechnicalCollege System / 4,028,110 / 2,719,195 / 1,583,443 / $241,817,054
TexasA&MUniversitySystemHealthScienceCenter / 2,517,312 / 796,808 / 549,440 / **
TexasTechUniversityHealthSciencesCenter / 2,136,030 / 1,341,545 / 999,822 / $315,681,352
The University of TexasHealthCenter at Tyler / 684,281 / 388,658 / 146,299 / $108,072,794
The University of TexasHealthScienceCenter at Houston / 3,271,670 / 2,344,322 / 1,263,644 / $512,397,205
The University of TexasHealthScienceCenter at San Antonio / 2,586,527 / 1,503,050 / 1,346,208 / $408,451,009
The University of TexasM.D.AndersonCancerCenter / 5,599,453 / 2,710,506 / 1,211,537 / $830,488,562
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston / 6,687,478 / 4,411,408 / 1,462,677 / $1,004,324,308
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas / 6,119,764 / 3,787,587 / 1,616,292 / $959,402,179
University of NorthTexasHealthScienceCenter at Fort Worth / 735,471 / 388,947 / 313,449 / $134,703,130
Total Public Health-Related Institutions / 30,337,986 / 17,672,831 / 8,909,368 / $4,273,520,539
Grand Total / 140,410,767 / 84,753,169 / 50,980,869 / $14,359,823,053
* Replacement value for TexasA&MInternationalUniversity was unavailable at time of publication. Table lists last year’s value.
** Included with TexasA&MUniversity
Source: THECB facilities inventory as of November 2002 and December 2002 THECB approved replacement values as of December 2002
The Campus Master Planning Process
The Texas Education Code, Section 61.0582, gives the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board responsibility for collecting planning information from institutions of higher education and using that information for evaluating and approving campus construction and land acquisition projects.
Accordingly, Section 17.40 of the Coordinating Board’s rules and regulations states that:
“All public lower-division institutions and technical colleges, general academic institutions, health-related institutions, and Texas A&M University System service agencies are required to submit current data to the Coordinating Board for the following reports:
(1)Campus Master Plans.
(A) The Coordinating Board shall consider projects that are included in campus master plan reports. A project that is not included in the master plan may be considered if the Board determines that the institution, even with careful planning, could not reasonably have foreseen the project need.
(B) Campus master plans shall include:
(i) an assessment of an institution's facilities deferred maintenance needs;
(ii) a plan to address the deferred maintenance needs;
(iii) the amount the institution plans to designate each Fiscal Year for the cost of repairs, rehabilitation, and deferred maintenance projects;
(iv)the funding source for any planned construction or real property acquisition proposal that is not exempt from Board approval;
(v) a description of the proposals which the institution plans to finance with the Higher Education Assistance Fund or Permanent University Fund (Article VII, §§17 or 18, of the Texas Constitution); and,
(vi)any proposed new construction, repair and rehabilitation, real property acquisition, or other construction project that may be submitted within the next five years to the Coordinating Board.
(C) On October 15 of each year institutions must submit an update to its campus master plan on file at the Coordinating Board.”
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board implemented the campus master planning process by adopting rules that require institutions to submit the following reports each year. These reports are briefly described as follows:
MP 1:A list of all construction, renovation, and information resources projects and land acquisitions planned for the following five years. This report does not include routine maintenance projects, but it does include all other projects that will be placed on the agenda for Coordinating Board consideration. In March 2002, the MP1 report was incorporated into the Bond Review Board’s biennial Capital Expenditure Report for the 78th Texas Legislature.
MP 2:A current list of all deferred maintenance needs. Accumulated deferred maintenance includes projects from prior years that were not included in the maintenance program because their priority status is perceived to be lower than those funded within the budget. This may include postponed renewal and replacement maintenance, unperformed or unscheduled repairs, and planned maintenance. Critical deferred maintenance includes deferred maintenance projects that place facilities, occupants, or mission at risk.
MP 3:A schedule for addressing the projects listed in the MP2. This report includes projects planned for the next five fiscal years to address accumulated deferred maintenance.
MP 4:A list of actual expenditures on accumulated deferred maintenance projects that occurred during the previous Fiscal Year.
The MP1 reports,were collected in June 2002, covering planned expenditures for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007. Results were presented to the Coordinating Board in October 2002. A separate publication has been developed to summarizes those results. Future MP1 reports will be requested on a biennial basisbiennially.
The MP2, MP3, and MP4 reports, are collected from each institution by the Coordinating Board's Campus Planning Office each October, are compiled into a master database, summarized, reviewed by the Committee on Campus Planning each December, and presented provided to the Coordinating Board each January.
This report is devoted to the summaries of MP2, MP3, and MP4 reports filed in October 2002, covering deferred maintenance for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007 and expenditures made in Fiscal Year 2002.
Data from these master plans are incorporated into the Campus Planning Office’s annual Facilities Fact Book and used to evaluate project requests presented by institutions.
Accumulated Deferred Maintenance Needs
Closing the Gaps, the state’s education plan, establishes goals to enrollThe Texas higher education plan, Closing the Gaps, includes a forecasted an additional 500,000 students increase, an increase in the number of nationally recognized programs, and a 50 percent increase by 50 percent in federal research funding to Texas institutions by 2015. To meet these goals, it is vital that institutions must allocate adequate funds towards for their facilities – to bothboth to construct additional space and to maintain existing space. The allocation of funds between the two is primarily left to each institution’s discretion, but the growing backlog of deferred maintenance impedes the state’s ability isa detriment to the ability of the state to “close the gaps.”
Over recent years, Ddeferred maintenance forin higher education facilities has been on the rise for a number of yearsincreased. The cause of this increase has been attributed to a number of factors, including the lack of adequate fundsneeded to meet the maintenance requirements of these facilities. Institutions also routinely choose to defer non-critical projects to later years. However, as campus facilities have aged, and the routine maintenance necessary to keep them functioning is deferred, public institutions have consistently reported an increase in unaddressed maintenance.
However, fFor the first time since Fiscal Year 1997, institutionshave reported an overall decrease in deferred maintenance (see Graph 1). Graph 1 shows deferred maintenance in absolute dollars for FY 1997 to FY 2002. Reported deferred maintenance in Fiscal Year 2001 was $603.7 million compared to $542.2 million in Fiscal Year2002, a decrease of over 10 percent.
Source: 2002 campus master plan reports (MP2)
The Coordinating Board requests deferred maintenance data to gauge how well institutions are taking care of their facilities. The Board uses the ratio of reported deferred maintenance to building replacement value to evaluate construction project applications that are submitted for review. A high ratio may cause the Board to question whether proposed project funds might best be used to address the backlog of deferred maintenance on a campus. Currently, the Board standard is a five 5 percent ratio of accumulated deferred maintenance to replacement value.
In October 2001, the Board revised the methodology used to calculate building replacement values, resulting in higher replacement values for most institutions. These higher values caused the ratios of deferred maintenance to replacement value to decrease, even as reported deferred maintenance increased. However, the deferred maintenance needs reportedThe decrease continued in Fiscal Year 2002, have resulted in an even greater decrease in ratios, as shown in Graph 2.
Source: 2002 campus master plan reports (MP2) and December 2002 THECB- approved replacement values as of December 2002
Ten institutions reported accumulated deferred maintenance in excess of the five 5 percent of replacement value threshold specified by the Board:
- Lamar Institute of Technology
- Texas A&M University-Commerce
- Lamar State College-Orange
- Texas A&M University-Galveston
- Prairie View A&M University
- Texas Southern University
- Southwest Texas State University
- Texas Woman’s University
- Stephen F. Austin State University
- University of Houston
1
Lamar Institute of Technology
Lamar State College-Orange
Prairie View A&M University
Southwest Texas State University
Stephen F. Austin State University
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Texas A&M University-Galveston
Texas Southern University
Texas Woman’s University
University of Houston
1
Of these, six reported accumulated deferred maintenance above 10 percent, with Texas A&M University-Commerce, Texas A&M University-Galveston, and Texas Southern University reporting values above 20 percent.
Deferred maintenance is considered critical if it places the institution’s facilities, occupants, or mission at risk. The Coordinating Board's goal has been to reduce critical deferred maintenance to zero. However, over the past two years, critical deferred maintenance has increased.