Today I will go over space modeling and its uses as well as present the conceptual differences between the space model we currently use and the space

Today I will go over space modeling and its uses as well as present the conceptual differences between the space model we currently use and the space planning guidelines as outlined by the CEFPI organization. 1

A model s general purpose is to predict an institution s educational and general (E&G) space needs based on a number of factors. It does not predict Auxiliaries Space needs. Early 1990 s Current model developed primarily used in project approvals. 1995 HEAF allocation (surplus/deficit used in the Need portion of the allocation) 1997 Legislature incorporated into the GAI funding formulas (now only predicted space is used in the Infrastructure funding allocation) The calculations vary slightly by sector and separate models exist for: General Academic Institutions (includes Technical Colleges) Health-Related Institutions Texas A&M Agencies Community college facilities are not under purview of the THECB and are not included. 2

Ex. Of Space Factor 35 SF/student for study space The Space Factor inputs can be determined by the workgroup that reviews possible changes to the Model Only if asked: CEFPI publication can be purchased on the cefpi.org website for $40 3

Both models predict the E&G net assignable square feet that an institution needs by using the following 5 factors: teaching, library, research, office, and support space. Both include Clinical Space (instead of Library Space) for the HRI Institutions. The slides I ll take you through next will show a side-by-side comparison of the differences between both models. 4

This factor predicts need for space use codes 100, 500, 600, & 210-235. Semester credit hours use is specifically different in the calculation methodologies to predict classroom and class lab space. In the current method, Semester Credit Hours, reported on the CBM004, are multiplied by a typical load for the Level of Instruction (i.e. Undergrad, Masters, Doctor, Professional) to determine a Full-Time Student Equivalent. They are also multiplied by a pre-determined amount of space based on the program area. Program Area, as determined by the CIP Code, breaks out different disciplines i of study into one of 4 categories based on their space need intensities. (i.e. more space for agriculture and visual arts programs vs. business or law studies which would require less space). CEFPI, on the other hand, uses Semester Credit Hours by Instruction Type (Lecture, Lab, Seminar, Practicum, Independent Study, Thesis, etc.) to predict 110 and 210 space. FTSE is also used in CEFPI for the calculation of other Teaching Space Use Codes in the 500 and 600 series. Total SCH are used to calculate FTSE (in both models), whereas, in the CEFPI Model, only lecture, seminar, and lab modes of instruction generate predicted space for classrooms and class labs. Even though both models account for institution size, they do it different ways. In the current model, an economy of scale variable is applied to those institutions with more than 15,000 undergraduate FTSE. ((A factor of.98 is used for the first 1,000 FTSE above 15,000, and the factor decreases.02 for each increase of 1,000 undergraduate FTSE)). In CEFPI, the point breaks are generally broken out between those institutions with full time student equivalents of less than 3000, 3000-10000, greater than 10000 (varies some by space use code). ((The following assumptions were used in determining the Space Factor for the CEPFI model: station size= 20 for classroom, 72 for class lab hours of room use=average of 30 for classrooms and 20 for class labs; Station occupancy=average of.65 for classrooms and.78 for class labs)) 5

The factor estimates the need for all 400 space use codes and 300 s with functional category 41. For CEFPI, bound volume equivalents as reported to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission (reported to the NCES every other year). Not every institution was consistent in reporting, so if this method were to be used, we d have to examine this further. 6

In the current model, research space is modeled on the highest of two options to determine the need for space use codes 250 and 255 only. Institution s s receive 9SF per $1000 in expenditures (adjusted for inflation) or 3 SF per FTSE, whichever is greater. In CEFPI, institutions below 3000 FTSE receive 30 SF per FTE Faculty, institutions above 3000 FTSE receive 40 SF per FTE Faculty, and those institutions specifically designated as research institutions receive 250 SF per FTE Faculty. For the purpose of this exercise, we included the 9 schools seeking or already receiving Tier-One status as a research institutions. 7

This factor estimates space need for the 300 space use codes. In the current model, the highest of the two methods is used: 3.5 square feet per inflation adjusted $1000 E&G expenditure or, 190 square feet for each full-time faculty equivalent, and 170 SF for non-faculty FTFE. Non-faculty FTFE is calculated the same way ((by multiplying FTFE by 1.8)), however, in the CEFPI model, there is no differentiation in office size of 170 vs 190 SF for FTFE vs. non FTFE. It assumes the same size office for both (170 SF), unless the institution is designated as a research institution, in which case it receives 185 SF per office. In addition, in CEFPI, an assumption on how many people need an office is a factor. We assumed that 80% of FTFE and NON Faculty FTFE have need for an office in this exercise. This is another factor that may need to adjusted based on further research from the advisory committee. 8

This factor estimates space need for the 700 series space use codes. 9

On average, CEFPI Space Planning predicts more closely to the institutions current actual space. Teaching & Library Space, CEFPI predicts more than actual, whereas Research, Office, and Support are predicted under the current actual. Formula funding group may need to look at adjusting factors 10

Who in the audience has served as a PRT Lead before? Who in the audience has served as a PRT Member? 1

Background, Goals and Timing, FY 2011 Audit Schedule, Audit Objectives, Process efficiencies Audit Process Flow, Compliance criteria, Questions and Feedback. 2

Texas higher education facilities constitute a large resource for the state. Developments of physical plants to accommodate projected enrollments are critical components of the state s goal of closing the gaps in higher education. 3

The goal of the Peer Review Team audits is to assess, verify, and improve the data and processes of the public colleges and universities. Public Universities, Lamar State Colleges, and Texas State Technical Colleges will be audited on a 5-year cycle. The Coordinating Board (CB) staff no later than March 15 of each year, shall publish a schedule of audits for the succeeding fiscal year. 4

2 institutions in September 2010 SulRoss and TSTC West Texas. 1 January 2011 SulRoss Rio Grande. 1 February 2011 TSTC Waco. 1 March Texas Southern. 1 April 2011 TSTC Marshall. 1 June 2011TSTC Harlingen. We will be confirming dates for any FY 2010 re-audits and adding them to the bottom of this list. 5

1 institution in October 2011 UT Tyler 1 January 2012 UT San Antonio. 1 March 2012 UT El Paso. 2 June UT Dallas and Pan American. 1 July 2012 Texas State San Marcos. We will be confirming dates for any FY 2011 re-audits and adding them to the bottom of this list. 6

Institutions are accurately reporting their facilities data to the Board. Control systems are in place. The Institutions are following Board rules in relation to receiving Board and institutional governing board approval on facilities projects. Projects are completed as specified. 7

This list identifies a few of the process improvements that have been made to make the audit process more efficient. 8

Audit Worksheets are automatically populated with the relevant room information to be reviewed by the PRT. Building Name, Room Number, Room Area and Room Type. (This process has been automated to save time on audit preparation) 9

Audit Worksheets are automatically populated with the relevant room information to be reviewed by the PRT. Room Use and the Group level CIP Code. (This process has been automated to save time on audit preparation) 10

Audit Worksheets are automatically populated with the relevant room information to be reviewed by the PRT. The bottom portion of the audit worksheet is left for Proration percentage, PRT member initials, Comments, and drawing space if required. (This process has been automated to save time on audit preparation) 11

The room summary report auto calculates the Audit score of each Goal at the bottom of the sheet. Room Identifiers and Space use code. This also saves the PRT team time that can be utilized on the audit report. 12

The room summary report auto calculates the Audit score of each Goal at the bottom of the sheet. Room Use and CIP Group code. This also saves the PRT team time that can be utilized on the audit report. 13

The room summary report auto calculates the Audit score of each Goal at the bottom of the sheet. Prorated Percentage of use, Reported Room Area total deviation and number of rooms that the deviation is greater than 10%. This also saves the PRT team time that can be utilized on the audit report. 14

The Audit Agenda contains the contact information of the principal players in the initial site PRT review. 15

Audit agenda contains actions and timing prior to site visit. 90 days Confirms audit date with PRT and institution and reminder to update inventory. 60 days Institution sends policies and procedures to THECB Staff and PRT lead. 30 days conformation of inventory update and Room sample taken by THECB Staff Forward documentation to team lead for distribution. 16

Audit agenda contains actions and timing after site visit. 17

The processes in the initial first year of the audit cycle were to have 3 to 5 members per PRT Team. We are finding that a PRT team with 3 members is most efficient and in most cases, with the other documentation efficiencies, the PRT team can complete the walk thorough and report in the first day and hold the exit interview the morning of the second day. In the interest of holding travel expenses for the institutions to a minimum. We are selecting and training PRT members in the following way. New PRT members must possess a knowledge of the THECB rules and space management within their institutions as it relates to tracking and reporting E&G space to external agents. Select members from institutions that will be audited the following year of the current audit schedule to serve as PRT members. Send the new potential members all relevant material used in audit process for their review. If needed, hold a tele conference with the new PRT member to answer any 18

30 days prior to the PRT audit the THECB (Staff) will provide the 35 room sample to the PRT team and the institutional contact. The PRT on-site field audit is performed, and within the same time frame, the institution s internal audit staff will perform the Developmental Project Audit. 19

14 days after the completion of the PRT on-site field audit, the PRT will document its findings and submit a PRT Report to the institution s Chief Facilities Officer (or other designated official per the institution). Within the same time frame, the institution s internal audit staff will perform and submit the Developmental Project report to the Chief Facilities officer and the THECB. 14 days after receipt of the PRT audit report the Chief Facilities Officer (CFO) (or Equivalent) appends institution s internal auditor s report with the PRT audit report and CFO s comments to create the Institution Facilities Audit Report. And sends the Institutional tional facilities Audit Report with the CFO s comments to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (or Equivalent). 20

30 days after receipt of the Institutional facilities Audit Report the CEO (or Equivalent) reviews and sends reports with any comments to the THECB (Staff). THECB Staff reviews the Institutional audit report and applies compliance criteria to determine required remediation (Re-Audit). THECB Staff - Reports the results of all audits completed in the FY at the September Committee Meeting. 21

3 minor deficiencies equals one major deficiency. An institution would be considered in compliance with a score of 70% and no major deficiencies. 22

Are there any questions? We would like to here any positive or negative feedback on your experiences from both the audit institution and as a reviewer. 23

Ask those in the audience if they are familiar with the Tracking Report? 1

Background, Project Completion Status, Project Update Requirements, Project Workbook Example, Project Reapprovals Questions. 2

This report serves as a communication to the Board that approved projects are materially complete. The staff updates the project s status in ICPS to Approved-Online as institutions report it complete in the tracking report. Whether an institution reports the project complete or still in progress, reapprovals are required if the project gross footage reported increases more than + or - 10%, the funding increases more than 10%, a new funding source is introduced, and more than 18 months since approved for construction and 2 years for property purchases. 3

On or before November 1, a notification memo will be sent to all Presidents of the TSTC and Lamar s, University President s and Chancellors, Public Health-Related Presidents and Chancellors as well as the Institutional Facilities Representatives. Tracking report is due on or before December 1, 30-days post inventory certification. 4

The accuracy of the updated project information supplied by the institution is crucial, given the information is used in Average Construction Costs Standard and the Space Projection Model Deficit/Surplus calculation. 5

When the project is marked approved-online by the institution and all project information has been updated, the Coordinating Board staff will set the project to approved online status in ICPS. Once the status is set to approved-online, the staff will no longer request annual updates on the project. All inventory updates associated with the project must be reported as certified inventory before the project is placed in an approved-online status. 6

The following items will signal that a project is complete and will no longer need to be reported to the THECB. 7

The goal of the tracking report is to provide the Board with the most updated information associated with approved projects. The staff realizes the details provided in a project application can change over the course of project completion. Collecting this data annually, provides a manageable way to collect updates. The board is now collecting total project costs and construction cost. The addition of both new construction and repair and renovation costs allow the staff to used final project costs in calculating the annual average construction cost report. These updates critically impact the cost averages used to determine if projects meet standard. Additionally, square footages for addition, new construction, repair and renovation, real property purchases, and demolition are collected. These numbers serve as the denominator in the average construction cost standard. Also, they assist the staff in evaluating if a project needs reapproval. They should be as accurate as possible and must match the inventory updates. 8

Each year institutions perform projects that are exempt from THECB approval. While institutions are not required to receive approval prior to the execution of these projects, they must report these projects on the Tracking Report. The only exception is projects that do not add E&G space to the facilities inventory. Governing Board Approved projects not requiring Coordinating Board approval and that add E&G space to the institutions inventory have been combined with the project status updates and due at the same time to help eliminate additional and separate reporting schedules. 9

Walk through the template, note what is populated by the staff and theirs and what is to tie to the facilities inventory. Un-highlighted items are populated by the THECB staff and sent out to the institutions for updates. The yellow highlighted items are the updates the institution provides the THECB. Governing Board Approved projects should be added to the right of THECB approved projects on the provided template. 10

Walk through the template, note what is populated by the staff and theirs and what is to tie to the facilities inventory. Un-highlighted items are populated by the THECB staff and sent out to the institutions for updates. The yellow highlighted items are the updates the institution provides the THECB. The calculation for the GSF of the project that is greater than plus or minus 10 percent; is based on the summation of GSF for Addition, New Construction, Renovation and Real Property then subtracting any demolition gives the staff the basis by which the +- 10 percent is calculated. The original submission of this project omitted demolition, which per the calculation created a reduction in GSF of 60% requiring the institution to submit the project for Board reapproval. 11

Walk through the template, note what is populated by our staff and theirs and What is to tie to the facilities inventory. Un-highlighted items are populated by the THECB staff and sent out to the institutions for updates. The yellow highlighted items are the updates the institution provides the THECB. On the add too and remove from inventory lines; the institution should submit what actually will be added and what will be remove not the net as was submitted in the above example. Which should have added 26,591 GSF and removed 16,040 from the inventory with the net being 10,551 GSF. Governing Board Approved projects should be added to the right of THECB approved projects on the template only when the project adds E&G space. 12

Walk through the template, note what is populated by the staff and theirs and what is to tie to the facilities inventory. Un-highlighted items are populated by the THECB staff and sent out to the institutions for updates. The yellow highlighted items are the updates the institution provides the THECB. The total project costs in this project submission did not exceed the greater than 10% increase threshold. However, an additional funding source (Designated Tuition $700,000) was added to the institutions revision and would also have triggered Board reapproval of this project. 13

The following will trigger the need for a project to be submitted to the Board for reapproval: If the original application estimated costs are exceeded by 10%. If the original application estimated gross square footages change by more than plus or minus 10%. The institution has not contracted the project within 18 months of Board approval. Previously approved purchases of real property are valid for two years from the date of Board approval. Any changes in funding sources. 14

Are there any questions? We would like to here any positive or negative feedback on your experiences with the Tracking Report. 15

This presentation is intended for CCI reporting officials and staff supporting the collection of maintenance data for this report. 1

As recommended by the implementation working group, the staff is employing a phased implementation cycle. Everyone should have just reported and provided the maintenance information on one building and one infrastructure project. This phase was to introduce each institution to the reporting manual and help scope the effort required to fully report next year. The next milestone is in September, when the requirement will be at least 3 buildings up to 3 percent of your building inventory. This fall the staff will collect deferred maintenance BAU using the MP2 reporting system in ICPS, just as we have done for years now. 2

The following fall we will collect a full report under this new method. As you can see, we have several milestones in the interim to keep you engaged and ensure progress in collecting the data. We are asking institutions to submit most of their inventory this time next year. We will follow that collection with a repeat of this training and question and answer session. 3

Along with these resources, a list of reporting officials will be distributed for use in networking and developing best practices. 4

Various audiences have requested the data we are collecting for years. However, the primary use will be construction project evaluations. While replacement value has historically been used in the HEAF allocation, the data collected here may better serve as a facilities condition element. 5

Historically, the MP2 and MP4 have been collected using ICPS. While the process works, we do not have the resources to modify the application to fit the new parameters for the CCIR. Therefore, we are going to collect the CCIR data using tab delimited flat files submitted via emails. The slide lists the parts of the email. The body is an opportunity to provide comments and notes about anomalies in your data. 6

The attached file has three parts. The data in all parts is tab delimited. Make sure you do not use spaces to delimit the data. The file name is free form as the file can be identified using the first record (Header). The elements in each part vary slightly, but are all separated by tab characters. There are no column headers in the report just the data. 7

The first part is the report header. It helps the staff identify files. The time does not need to be precise. It is used in the event we receive multiple reports from the same institution on the same day. 8

Every building that is reported in your facilities inventory the previous fall should be included in this section. All project costs (including the cost of the top 5 priority projects reported in the next section). However unlikely, there can be up to 168 lines for a given building based on the number of possible combinations of all these fields. It is highly recommended institutions use a project database to track projects. Individually code each project, and then use a grouping query to combine identically coded projects for the same building. This approach is anticipated to be the most manageable. Year, FICE, and Building are straight forward values. 9

Here is a list of periods. Projects that do not fit into one of these periods, are not in scope of this report. A project may fit in multiple periods and cost will need to be assigned to each period. E = Items completed in the last fiscal year. Do report items completed in the previous fiscal year, but paid in a different accounting period. B = Items included on the current fiscal year budget. If reporting on 10/15/2012, then the Budgeted Current Year is 2013. U = Items due or scheduled to be performed in the current year, but are not included in the budget for lack of funds, scheduling opportunity, or any reason. P = Items due or scheduled to be performed in the next fiscal year or the three fiscal years following. For example, on the Fall 2012 report, include FY 2014 through FY 2017. 10

Here is a list of the possible maintenance categories. Refer to the definitions in Board Rule and the reporting manual for additional details. PM = Major building subsystems which have predictable life-cycles including roofs, HVAC, electrical and plumbing systems DM = Components in need of repair or replacement brought about by age, use, or damage Postponed or considered backlogged Excludes on-going maintenance, planned maintenance performed according to schedule, and facilities adaptation CM = DM not corrected in the current budget cycle Places its building occupants at risk of harm Or, the facility at risk of not fulfilling its functions FA = Improvements and changes in response to evolving needs 11

Here is a list of the maintenance types. Again, Board Rule and the reporting manual definitions have additional information. A = Correct architectural structure deficiencies - Foundation, walls, ceiling, roof, etc H = Correct heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system deficiencies P = Correct plumbing and electrical systems deficiencies S = Performed to ensure the safety of occupants L = Performed to comply with legislative and mandated requirements O = Items not in the above types 12

The last two data elements for this part of the report are the amount and the basis for determining the amount. 13

The third and final part of the report is the top five priority projects. The data elements in this section of the report are identical to part two with exceptions noted. The costs for these projects have already been reported in the building level part of the report. So the costs in this section are duplicated here. This section serves to answer common questions we receive at the Board. We considered omitting it for simplicity, but we are confident we would need to place inquiries for the data every year. 14

The staff will review the data at the building level to ensure it makes good sense. At the present, the only planned report is the CCI to Value report. The deferred and critical deferred maintenance are summed for each building. Then, prorated by the percent of grossed up E&G space to total gross space for the building. The E&G Deferred Maintenance value is dived by the institution CCI Value. Additionally, we will publish an institution-wide CCI Ratio with the total CM and DM divided by the institution-wide CCIV. More metrics are possible, but there are no current plans to report those. 15

Thank you for attending. 16