Capital Outlay Program

Transcription

1 Capital Outlay Program 2003 BAKERSFIELD CHANNEL ISLANDS 2004 CHICO DOMINGUEZ HILLS FRESNO FULLERTON HAYWARD HUMBOLDT LONG BEACH LOS ANGELES MARITIME ACADEMY MONTEREY BAY NORTHRIDGE POMONA SACRAMENTO SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE SAN LUIS OBISPO California State University SAN MARCOS SONOMA STANISLAUS

2 CSU TRUSTEES Ex Officio Trustees Hon. Gray Davis Governor Hon. Cruz Bustamante Lieutenant Governor Capital Outlay Program Hon. Herb Wesson, Jr. Speaker of the Assembly Dr. Charles B. Reed Chancellor Hon. Delaine Eastin State Superintendent of Public Instruction Appointed Trustees Dr. Debra S. Farar, Chair Dr. Murray L. Galinson, Vice Chair Roberta Achtenberg William D. Campbell Martha C. Fallgatter Robert Foster Dr. Harold Goldwhite William Hauck Ricardo F. Icaza Dr. Shailesh J. Mehta Dee Dee Myers Ralph R. Pesqueira Fred Pierce (Alumni Trustee) Erene S. Thomas (Student Trustee, voting) Kyriakos Tsakopoulos Anthony M. Vitti Trustee Officers Gray Davis, President Debra Farar, Chair Murray L. Galinson, Vice Chair Christine Helwick, Secretary Richard West, Treasurer California State University C apita l Planning, Design and Construction

3 Message from the Chancellor Although the California State University has experienced slow and steady enrollment growth for many years, the major influx of students in the past two years has reached tidal wave proportions. Last fall, the CSU grew by more than 20,000 students, equal to adding a new campus the size of CSU Pomona. A similar increase is projected for fall We can now say for certain that the long-predicted surge in student enrollment known as Tidal Wave II has officially arrived at the CSU. As the state s largest university system, we take great pride in our mission to serve all eligible students by providing access to a high-quality education. That is why we have undertaken a massive systemwide effort to meet the needs of these current and future students. We have maximized use of our facilities, expanded year-round operations to 16 campuses, and offered more evening, weekend, and shortterm intensive courses. We also have worked to reach more students through new distance learning and offcampus instructional sites, including but not limited to intersegmental partnerships at both National City and Otay Mesa in the San Diego/Imperial county area, Coachella Valley in Palm Desert serving CSU San Bernardino and community college students, and Antelope Valley meeting the needs of the lower Central Valley. Charles B. Reed, Chancellor The combined effect of our enrollment growth and these expanded-use strategies has placed considerable strain on our capital resources. Our existing facilities are older more than half are over 28 years old and the increased usage has added to the need for repairs, renovations, and new construction. Over the past four years, we have been able to manage our most pressing capital needs thanks to California voters generous support of the Proposition 1A general obligation bond in The funding from this bond built the classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and technological infrastructure that have allowed us to serve our students and provide expanded access. 300,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 Projects Funded Through Prop 1A Infrastructure Renovation New Facilties/Growth With Proposition 1A, we were able to put $139 million into infrastructure projects, $320 million into renovations, and $365 million into new construction. We provided upgraded telecommunications capabilities to 16 of our 23 campuses; and 100,000,000 50,000, / / / /02

4 As the state s largest university system, we take great pride in our mission to serve all eligible students by providing access to a high-quality education. we renovated buildings that are 40 years or older. This addressed some of the needs of our aging physical plant and reduced systemwide capital renewal needs. Additionally, we created 556 new faculty offices. Nevertheless, the end of the Proposition 1A funding did not bring an end to our ongoing capital outlay needs. The CSU is now looking to the November 2002 ballot, in which voters will consider Proposition 47, a $13 billion bond measure that would direct a total of $1.65 billion to higher education for capital outlay projects. The CSU s 2002/03 and 2003/04 capital outlay program directly relies upon voters support of this new general obligation bond. Through this bond, the CSU would receive $496 million to fund the 2002 ($290 million) and 2003 ($206 million) capital program. This funding would allow for the construction of new buildings for increased enrollment, along with the renovation of buildings and upgrade of telecommunications capabilities at the remaining seven campuses. This funding would also provide new faculty offices, increased study areas and collection space in libraries, and improved student service spaces all critical capital components in our ability to serve student instructional needs. 38,000 36,000 34,000 32,000 30,000 28,000 26,000 Projected Housing Capacity Bed Spaces Aside from general obligation bond funding, the CSU is also continuing to serve its growing student population through nonstate-funded projects. In the area of student housing, we are preparing to have 1,500 new beds available for students in fall 2002, and we anticipate that we will be able to provide an additional 4,775 new beds by fall These new facilities will alleviate the heavy demand for student housing and will allow more students to live both affordably and closer to campus. As we continue to look for innovative ways to meet the needs of our growing student population, we remain grateful to our many supporters who make these projects possible. The CSU thanks Governor Davis, our state policymakers, our private donors, and California s voters for giving our institution such strong support in previous years. California s policymakers and citizens have made clear their belief that an investment in education is an investment in the future. We are grateful for their confidence and we ask for their continued support. With their assistance, the CSU will be able to build a solid foundation for educational quality in the 21 st century.

5 State Funded Capital Outlay Program 2003/04 Priority LIst Cost Estimates are at Engineering News Record California Building Construction Cost Index 4019 and Equipment Price Index 2564 Rank Category Campus Project Title FTE Phase Dollars Funds to Order Complete 1 IB Statewide Minor Capital Outlay Program PWCE 12,000, IB Fresno Science II Replacement 1,440 E 1,958, IB Chico Student Services Center 0 WC 32,840,000 2,080,000 4 IB Stanislaus Science II Replacement Bldg. (Seismic) 680 WC 46,401,000 7,756,000 5 IB San Bernardino Science Buildings Reno./Add., Phase II 0 PWC 21,786,000 1,480,000 6 IB Sonoma Renovate Darwin Hall 288 PWC 26,012,000 3,414,000 7 II Maritime Academy Land Acquisition N/A A 1,301, II San Diego Social Science/Art Gallery/P.S PWC 25,384,000 1,476,000 9 IB Sacramento Infrastructure Upgrade, Phase 2 N/A PWC 18,691, IB San José Joint Library - Secondary Effect 1,731 PWC 19,633,000 2,051, IB Los Angeles Science Replacement Building, Wing B 849 PWC 29,507,000 3,671, II Dominguez Hills Leo F. Cain Ed. Resource Center Add./Rem. N/A PWC 39,955,000 2,686, II San Bernardino College of Education 1,483 PWC 47,407,000 2,293, II Bakersfield Math & Computer Science Building 788 PWC 19,012,000 1,089, IB Pomona Science Renovation (Seismic) 0 PWC 20,152,000 2,883, IB Humboldt Forbes PE Complex Reno./Add. 79 PWC 39,218,000 1,823, II San Luis Obispo Engineering/Arch. Reno./Replace., Ph.II B 267 WC 29,487,000 4,137, II Northridge Science I & II Replacement, Phase I Add. 36 PWC 14,557, , IB Long Beach Peterson Hall 3 Renovation 0 PWC 29,701,000 3,250, II Monterey Bay Academic Complex Renovation, # PWC 9,177,000 1,230, II Fresno Library Addition and Renovation N/A PW 3,583,000 94,254, IB San Luis Obispo Center for Science and Mathematics 368 PWC 90,184,000 9,662, IB Maritime Academy Simulation Center 92 PWC 4,413, , IB San Marcos Craven Hall Renovation 0 PWC 5,761, , IB San Diego Storm/Nasatir Hall Renovation -962 PWC 28,549,000 1,446, II Chico Taylor II Renovation/Addition 332 PWC 34,609,000 1,958, II San Marcos Humanities and Social Sciences I, #31 1,450 PWC 23,453,000 2,000, IB Bakersfield Physical Education Renovation/Addition 233 PWC 9,431, , IB Fullerton Physical Services Complex N/A PWC 6,067, ,000 Totals 10,460 $690,229,000 $153,006,000 Categories: I Existing Facilities/Infrastructure A. Critical Infrastructure Deficiencies B. Modernization/Renovation II New Facilities/Infrastructure This project is dependent upon state and nonstate funding. A = Acquisition P = Preliminary plans W = Working drawings C = Construction E = Equipment

6 Nonstate Funded Capital Outlay Program 2003/04 Summary LIst Cost Estimates are at Engineering News Record California Building Construction Cost Index 4019 and Equipment Price Index 2564 Campus Project Title Phase Dollars Funds to Complete Other/Donor Funding/Grants Channel Islands Faculty/Staff For-Sale/Rent Housing, Phase 3 (194 Units) PWC 30,000,000 San Luis Obispo Child Care Center Expansion PWC 1,200, ,000 San Luis Obispo Mechanical Engineering Applied Research Laboratory PWC 6,210,000 2,241,000 Subtotals $37,410,000 $2,516,000 Parking Fullerton Physical Services Complex 1 PWC 5,110, ,000 San Diego Soc. Sci./Art Gallery/Parking Structure 8 (280 Spaces) 2 PWC 9,392,000 Subtotals $14,502,000 $200,000 Totals $51,912,000 $2,716,000 1 This project is dependent upon state funds and two nonstate sources: Parking Funds $1.3M and Child Care Reserve Funds $3.8M. 2 This project is dependent upon state funds and two nonstate sources: Parking Funds $3.4M and Donor Funds $6.0M. P = Preliminary plans W = Working drawings C = Construction E = Equipment

7 Five-Year Summary by State Category and by Nonstate Fund Source (Dollars in 000 s) State Funded Summary of Campus Requests by category and by full-time equivalent student (FTE) capacity. Project 2003/ / / / /08 I. Existing Facilities/Infrastructure A. Critical Infrastructure Deficiencies B. Modernization/Renovation 456, , , , ,935 II. New Facilities/Infrastructure 233, , , , ,594 Totals $3,405,357 $690,229 $640,919 $957,511 $620,169 $496,529 I. FTE Existing Facilities/Infrastructure 4, ,105 II. FTE New Facilities/Infrastructure 5,662 11,471 8,572 4,394 1,410 FTE Totals 10,460 11,311 8,930 4,860 2,515 Nonstate Funded Summary of Campus Requests by category and by FTE, housing, and parking capacity. Project 2003/ / / / /08 Auxiliary/Foundation 0 31, , Housing Program 0 117, ,599 44, ,689 Other/Donor Funding/Grants 47, , , ,297 17,971 Parking Program 4, ,978 2,064 36,500 1,414 Student Union Program 0 57,938 69,388 3,314 19,723 Totals $1,438,400 $51,912 $516,623 $531,151 $198,147 $140,567 Housing Beds 0 3,985 1,570 2,310 0 Housing Units Parking Spaces , , FTE 0 1, ,006 0

8 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2003/04 through 2007/08 (Dollars in 000 s) State Funded 2003/ / / / /08 Totals Statewide 12,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25, ,000 Bakersfield 28, ,006 16,384 22,064 74,897 Channel Islands Chico 67, ,591 10,540 34, ,257 Dominguez Hills 39,955 24,399 38,647 17, ,817 Fresno 5,541 86,242 66,352 37, ,647 Fullerton 6,067 39,763 53,370 44,891 13, ,203 Hayward 0 32,517 46,052 19,092 21, ,252 Humboldt 39,218 31,332 48,600 20,016 52, ,624 Long Beach 29,701 18,754 38,018 31,706 14, ,000 Los Angeles 29,507 27,031 12,042 33,978 2, ,457 Maritime Academy 5, , ,976 23,698 Monterey Bay 9,177 15,393 22,260 14,690 19,982 81,502 Northridge 14,557 61,829 62,267 67,841 76, ,702 Pomona 20,152 32,177 49,404 19,108 31, ,458 Sacramento 18,691 13,557 72,223 44,271 39, ,466 San Bernardino 69,193 16,469 41,007 19, ,557 San Diego 53,933 6,514 72,946 31,757 45, ,309 San Francisco ,515 52,240 24, ,329 San José 19,633 77,865 68,377 6,967 22, ,885 San Luis Obispo 119,671 45,769 50,456 49,321 37, ,447 San Marcos 29,214 14,370 43,317 27, ,981 Sonoma 26,012 6,027 3, ,453 Stanislaus 46,401 65,402 13,639 30,601 5, ,416 Totals $690,229 $640,919 $957,511 $620,169 $496,529 $3,405,357 Nonstate Funded 2003/ / / / /08 Totals Bakersfield 0 10, ,077 1,158 16,004 Channel Islands 30,000 93,487 25,032 37,793 8, ,312 Chico Dominguez Hills Fresno 0 11, , ,138 Fullerton 5,110 54, , ,761 Hayward 0 0 1, ,500 Humboldt 0 24, , ,837 Long Beach Los Angeles , ,600 Maritime Academy 0 0 1, ,028 Monterey Bay 0 15,868 56,700 30,500 5, ,197 Northridge 0 38, ,243 Pomona 0 59,569 15,545 18,906 1,298 95,318 Sacramento 0 56,943 44,996 2,115 1, ,080 San Bernardino 0 12,985 9, ,146 San Diego 9,392 13,300 27, ,739 54,507 San Francisco , ,573 San José 0 3, ,548 3, , ,237 San Luis Obispo 7,410 79,325 72,241 41, ,067 San Marcos 0 8,832 18,689 42,815 16, ,740 Sonoma 0 19, ,414 Stanislaus 0 13,080 9, ,277 Totals $51,912 $516,623 $531,151 $198,147 $140,567 $1,438,400

9 Categories and Criteria to Set Priorities for the 2003/04 through 2007/08 State Funded Five-Year Capital Improvement Program General Criteria A campus may submit a maximum of one renovation project and one growth project, including health and safety projects, for the 2003/04 budget year, and one project for the 2004/05 planning year. Exceptions to this limit will be considered on an individual project basis. Equipment, seismic strengthening, and telecommunication infrastructure projects are excluded from this limit. Seismic strengthening projects will be prioritized according to recommendations from the Seismic Review Board. A campus may submit a maximum of three projects per year, including health and safety projects, for the 2005/06 through 2007/08 planning years. Campuses are to prepare their project requests for the five-year program using PWC lump sum funding for all new project starts. Campus requests for preliminary plan (P) phase funding separate from the working drawing and construction (WC) phases will be considered on an individual project basis. Phased projects must be completely funded (PWC) within the expected bond cycle. Requests for remaining projects in the five-year program that received an initial phase of funding should use the lump sum method for the balance of funds required to complete the projects with the exception of equipment funds. Current trustee-approved campus physical master plan enrollment ceilings apply to on-campus enrollment only. These numbers are to be used as the basis of comparison for justifying capital projects that address enrollment demand to be accommodated on campus. Enrollment estimates that exceed these figures should be accommodated through distributed learning and other off-campus instructional means. I. Existing Facilities/Infrastructure A. Critical Infrastructure Deficiencies These funds correct structural, health, and safety code deficiencies by addressing life safety problems and promoting code compliance in existing facilities. Projects include seismic strengthening, correcting building code deficiencies, and addressing regulatory changes that impact campus facilities or equipment. These funds also include minor capital outlay projects. B. Modernization/Renovation These funds make facilities operable by providing capital renewal, providing group II equipment, and replacing utility services to make buildings and the campus infrastructure operable. These funds also meet campus needs by modernizing facilities or constructing new replacement buildings in response to the academic and support program. II. New Facilities/Infrastructure These funds eliminate instructional and support deficiencies, including new buildings and its group II equipment, additions, land acquisitions, and site development.

10 The Basis of the Capital Outlay Program 2003/04 and the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2003/04 through 2007/08 The primary objective of the capital outlay program for the California State University is to provide facilities appropriate to the CSU s approved educational programs, to create environments conducive to learning, and to ensure that the quality and quantity of facilities at the 23 campuses serve the students equally well. The campuses and the Chancellor s office have enlisted broad participation by administrators, faculty, and students in the development of the capital outlay program. The Capital Outlay Program 2003/04 and the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program through 2007/08 (state funded) have the following basis: 1. Approved Academic Master Plans The Board of Trustees has adopted dynamic planning policies designed to promote orderly curricular development, guide the distribution of programs in the system, and facilitate the progress of each campus in fulfilling the mission of the CSU as expressed in the statewide master plan for higher education. These policies, first published in the 1963 Master Plan for the California State Colleges, are still in effect. The policies are summarized below. Curricula are to reflect the needs of students and of the state. The foundation program for each campus in the system consists of the liberal arts and sciences, business administration, and education. (The board specified subject areas that were to be regarded as the Broad Foundation Program. ) Programs in applied fields and professions other than those listed above are to be allocated within the system on the basis of (1) needs of the state, (2) needs of the campus service area, and (3) identification of employment opportunities. All campuses cannot be all things to all people. Curricula in the applied fields and professions are therefore to be located in a systemwide pattern that will achieve an equitable and educationally sound distribution of programs throughout the state. Although many campuses may wish to offer the same programs, the trustees exercise great selectivity in final approval of new curricula. Specialized, high-cost programs are to be allocated on the basis of review and study of the individual subject area. Subsequent policies adopted by the board include the following: Degree programs are to be broadly based and of high academic quality. Unnecessary proliferation of degrees and terminologies is to be avoided. A formal review of existing curricula is to be conducted by each campus as part of the overall planning process. The Academic Master Plans serve as the basis for campus master planning of facilities. The ability to accommodate the latest instructional technology will be included in the planning for construction of all new and renovated instructional buildings. 2. Approved Campus Physical Master Plans The Board of Trustees has long recognized the importance of each campus developing a physical master plan, in concert with the consulting campus architect and members of the local community. The board requires that every campus have a physical master plan, showing existing and anticipated facilities necessary to accommodate a specified academic year fulltime equivalent student enrollment at an estimated target date, in accordance with approved educational policies and objectives. Each master plan reflects the ultimate physical requirements of academic programs and auxiliary activities on the campus. In developing the plan, the campus considers costs and benefits, functionally related disciplines and activities, aesthetics, instructional support needs, environmental impact, including vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow.

11 3. Full-Time Equivalent Student Enrollment Allocations The program is based on the annual full-time equivalent student (FTE) college year enrollment targets that are prepared by the Chancellor s Office in consultation with the campuses. College year FTE enrollment targets include state-supported summer term enrollments, in accordance with trustee policy. 4. Approved Space and Utilization Standards Instructional space needs are calculated in conformity with space and utilization standards approved in September 1966 by the Coordinating Council for Higher Education (now titled the California Postsecondary Education Commission), as modified in March 1971 and June The table below displays the currently approved utilization standards: Hours/Week Station Station Use Occupancy Lecture Classrooms % 35.0 Teaching Laboratories, Lower Division % 23.4 Teaching Laboratories, Upper and Graduate Divisions % Space and Facilities Data Base The data base is an inventory maintained by each campus to manage and plan for space and facilities. The facilities data include (but are not limited to): the facility number, name, number of floors, gross and assignable square feet, master plan status, and cost. The space data file describes the current use of the space and includes: space type, discipline, instructional level, station count and type, and department code (among others). For the capital program, existing and funded plant capacity is carefully considered in program development. Included in the Statistical Summaries section is a summary by campus of the 2002/03 capacity as compared to the 2002/03 full-time equivalent student enrollment targets. Annual companion reports to the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program are the Summary of Campus Capacity and the Laboratory Enrollment FTE vs. Laboratory Capacity FTE. 6. Phasing Out of Leased and Temporary Facilities The Board of Trustees resolved in November 1972 that all leased and temporary facilities on campus should be phased out as soon as state funding could be secured for the replacement of the structures. 7. Estimates of Cost Based on the ENR Cost Index 4019 and EPI 2564 Cost estimates are based on the Engineering News Record California Building Construction Cost Index (CCCI) in place of the Engineering News Record Twenty-Cities average. The CCCI is the average Building Cost Index for Los Angeles and San Francisco as published in the Engineering News Record. The CCCI is the index now required by the Department of Finance (DOF). 8. Utility Conservation and Alternate Financing for Efficiency Improvement Projects Because of the limited state revenues available for cogeneration and other major capital outlay energy projects, the legislature has permitted alternative financing arrangements, including tax-exempt bond financing for energy projects and third party financing. The Board of Trustees has encouraged campuses to seek alternative means of financing energy efficiency projects, in keeping with the CSU program to conserve energy. 9. Seismic Retrofit Program In 1990, the governor s Executive Order D directed the California State University to give priority consideration to seismic safety in the allocation of resources available for construction projects. In order to assist in designing and implementing the seismic program, the Seismic Review Board was formed in 1992 and continues to guide the CSU efforts to identify and mitigate high safety risks. The intent of the program is to provide a safe environment for the public. In terms of performance, this means that retrofitted buildings shall not experience local or total collapse.

12 The Seismic Retrofit Program consists of the following activities: * Estimation of the life safety hazard posed by structures on CSU campuses and rank ordering of structures by the degree of seismic hazard they pose. * Engineering investigation of each identified structure to determine if it poses a hazard, and development of retrofit approach for mitigation of the hazard. * Recommendation of priority ranking for capital outlay projects for the retrofit projects developed. * For those projects approved, development of preliminary plans, working drawings, and construction implementation. The seismic surveys performed by the Seismic Review Board (SRB) originally began with a list of 100 state and nonstate buildings that needed further seismic investigation and analysis. Over time this number has been revised based on additional building assessments and soils/geological investigations. The list is updated by the SRB, as additional information is available, and is used to prioritize the funding of proposed structural strengthening projects. Campus and Chancellor s Office staff review the list to plan the scope and budget of proposed renovation projects. Nonstate Funded Projects The funds required to construct nonstate facilities are provided from gifts, reserves from mandatory fees and user charges, and from the issuance of self-supporting revenue bonds, the repayment of which is supported by mandatory fees and user charges. The state typically provides land for these projects and may provide utilities to the site. Nonstate funded projects include parking lots and structures, housing, student unions, health centers, stadiums, food service buildings, bookstores, and other facilities that help meet educational goals established by the Board of Trustees. Projects submitted for approval in the action year of the nonstate capital improvement plan require a market demand study where appropriate and a financial plan that supports the construction and the operation of the facility including repayment of any planned debt. For projects requiring debt financing, prior to the execution of a construction contract for the project, the campus will seek approval from the trustees for the issuance of bonds once the costs of a project is known through the development of construction bids. Trustee approval of the nonstate funded program is being sought, including authorization to the chancellor to proceed in 2002/03 with fast-track projects included in the 2003/2004 program.

13 C apita l Planning, Design and Construction