CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN OVERVIEW

Transcription

1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN OVERVIEW January 15, 2015

2 AGENDA Capital Improvement Planning overall methodology The FY 2015 CIP process and resulting project commitments Request for new projects and project approval protocol Capital Improvement Plan a program that establishes a short-range (5 year) plan, updated annually, identifying specific projects to be developed with a schedule (ranked) and costs with options for financing, providing link between the Strategic Academic Plan, Facility Needs Assessment, Facility Condition Assessment and the Capital Budget. Capital Improvement Plans are common industry practice for municipalities and universities of significant size. 2

3 CIP METHODOLOGY Facilities Condition Assessment Every 3 years 1/3 of the campus is surveyed and its physical deficiencies are documented. A value equal to the cost to repair/cost to replace (the FCI or Facilities Condition Index) is determined. The FCI provides a snapshot of the building s condition. The CIP was presented to the UH System Board of Regents in May The Board charged facilities staff with the annual goal of improving the institution s overall FCI, and using this as a metric in their progress card to monitor progress. The CIP is presented annually to the Board of Regents in May. The goal of the implementation of the CIP is to move the 5 year FCIN from poor condition to fair (FCIN between 5% and 10%) condition by 2017, by appropriately investing resources in the institution s facilities and infrastructure. 3

4 FY 2015 Education & General Use (E&G) Projects A B C D E F G H Bldg. No. Building Name Gross Area FCIN Deferred Maintenance Project Cost**(4Q 2015 $) Other Renovtn $/SF Per THECB Total Other Renovation Cost Total Project Renewal Cost Fall Dollars*** 1 CATEGORY I -- NEW CONSTRUCTION / REPLACE IN PLACE Campus Infrastructure--Cougar Substn % $ 21,833,020 $ - $ 21,833, Campus Infrastructure--Chilled Str Distr % $ 7,115,623 $ - $ 7,115, Campus Infrastructure--Electrical Distr % $ 5,988,260 $ - $ 5,988,260 5 TOTAL 0 TOTAL $ 34,936, CATEGORY II -- REHABILITATE OR REPAIR Science Building 127, % N/A $ 412 $ 52,653,600 $ 52,653, Roy G. Cullen 54, % $ 7,390,591 $ 195 $ 10,545,374 $ 17,935, Stephen Power Farish Hall 126, % $ 28,495,699 $ 195 $ 24,598,665 $ 53,094, Lamar Fleming, Jr. 117, % $ 17,899,872 $ 438 $ 51,313,890 $ 69,213, Engineering Lecture Hall 5, % $ 1,163,800 $ 195 $ 1,004,640 $ 2,168, Science and Research 1 214, % $ 28,719,470 $ 438 $ 93,949,248 $ 122,668, Charles F. McElhinney Hall 70, % $ 3,498,481 $ 195 $ 13,759,980 $ 17,258, Agnes Arnold Hall 162, % $ 14,740,296 $ 195 $ 31,657,665 $ 46,397, TOTAL 749,940 TOTAL $ 381,391,271 Identified and categorized projects (escalated to 4Q 2015): $17.9 M, Priority 1 Life/Safety Critical $223.4 M, Priorities 1-3 (0-5 years) Immediate $355 M, Priorities 1-5 (10 years) All 4

5 FY 2015 CIP RESULTS The major 2015 project identified by FCA is the expansion of the Cougar Substation, without which we could not have guaranteed reliable power to future buildings or to existing research projects. A second significant project is the renovation of 8 legacy building in the campus core: buildings which support liberal arts and STEM programs and provide numerous general purpose classrooms to the community. Major non-capital projects were also identified for action/improvement: these included numerous projects affecting life safety, academic program operation and accreditation, student wellbeing and security, and emergency operations. 5

6 CIP METHODOLOGY, cont. Facilities Users Online Space Needs Assessment Capital Project Planning Form and Evaluation (Ongoing) 6

7 CIP METHODOLOGY, cont. Campus Master Plan A land use, housing, utility, and parking capacity plan is developed every 5 years. The preliminary 2015 Master Plan will be presented to the Board of Regents in May. 7

8 CIP ANNUAL CALENDAR Survey of User Needs Analysis and Formulation of CIP-based projects Presentation to the BOR Facilities Committee January-April April May Presentation of master Plan to BOR Facilities Committee Incorporation into MP1 and submission to the THECB Becomes basis for LAR/TRB requests May June July 8

9 MPEC PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS MPEC Roles and Responsibilities Formally known as the CRDM committee. Responsible for prioritizing and recommending capital renewal/deferred maintenance related projects for funding by annual HEAF maintenance funds. Meets quarterly with additional meetings if needed. Subcommittee (RSC Review Subcommittee), that ranks proposed projects according to weighted criteria and forwards them MPEC. January 15,

10 MPEC PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Maintenance Project Evaluation Committee (MPEC) membership includes representation from Facilities Management administration and technical services group: Facilities Planning & Construction administration, planning, non-capital projects, and contract and financial services; Public Safety; Information Technology technical services; Academic Affairs; Research and the Provost. Review Subcommittee Membership (RSC) includes representation from Facilities Management, and Facilities Planning & Construction, including planning and contract and financial services 10

11 MPEC PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS, cont. Project Origination Facilities Condition Assessment Request from campus Emergency Request Evaluation (Projects over and under $50K) Project Approval Process for projects over $50K Requestor submits project request Subcommittee (RSC) reviews & evaluates If sub-committee agrees the project meets the required criteria, the RSC presents to the MPEC for recommendation to administration. If MPEC recommends approval, submission is sent to administration. January 15,

12 MPEC PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS, cont. Project Approval Process for projects under $50K Requestor submits project request Subcommittee (RSC) reviews & evaluates If sub-committee agrees the project meets the required criteria, the RSC submission is sent to VC/VP & Associate VC/CP of Administration & Finance for approval. January 15,

13 MPEC PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS, cont. Project Scoring Matrix HEAF MAINTENANCE FUNDS PROJECT SCORING MATRIX Project Request: Reviewer: CIP PROJECT SCORING CRITERIA Score (0-5) Weight (%) Weighted score 20% 0 Appropriateness of investment in building, considering the long-range plans for that building (including building FCIN) 15% 0 Urgency of need to repair/replace building system or component 15% 0 Impact to teaching/research goals of university 15% 0 Regulatory mandate or urgent life safety issue 10% 0 Impact to business continuity 10% 0 Economic payback (energy savings, etc.) 5% 0 Other benefit (sustainability, campus appearance, etc.) 5% 0 Opportunity to group with other projects 5% 0 Funding contributions from other sources 100% 0 TOTAL January 15,

14 Total HEAF Budget Allocation for FY 15 Immediate Needs FY15 PROJECTS IN PROGRESS Total: $15,575,000 1) Fine Arts HVAC 2,200,000 2) Engineering Fire pump 2,100,000 3) SR-1 Building Envelope/Stairs 2,000,000 4) Cullen Fountain refurbish 500,000 5) Card Access 2,300,000 6) AGL Demolition 250,000 7) Fire Marshal mandated projects 2,675,000 8) Electrical Substation 3,000,000 9) Campus Wayfinding Signage 550,000 $14.3 million PROJECTS IN PROGRESS Scope TBD Total: $1,750,000 1) Major shutdown repair and backup power 1,000,000 2) Transfer existing building(s) to Substation 750,000 Need Exceeds FY 15 Budget Grand Total: $17,325,000 May 6,

15 FACTORS AFFECTING CONSTRUCTION COST The construction market for Houston is volatile! Signs of increasing competition for labor: Major K-12 Bond Projects MFA $450 million Redevelopment Plan Numerous cranes in the Houston area Factors Mitigating Cost: Decline in oil prices Timing affects costs! We will update the standardized cost data on which estimates are based quarterly 15

16 PRESENTATION TAKEAWAYS The project approval process is analytical and objective. Project cost estimating involves a combination of THECB historical construction cost data, UH historical cost data, and market research. Construction cost estimated are escalated to meet the timing of the project. As our campus ages, and with continual new development, improvements to utility infrastructure take central stage. Existing utility capacity has a substantial impact on tech-intensive buildings. We are here to work with you on both short- and long-term projects, from lab start-ups to your 2020 goals and beyond. 16